he ese Gee: Nien Per } PETA OP PuriishingA History of Ancient Egypt NICOLAS GRIMAL Translated by lan Shaw ( Blackwell a Publishing© 1988 by Librairie Arthéme Fayard English translation © 1992, 1994 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd BLACKWELL PUBLISHING 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA. 108 Cowley Read, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia The right of Nicolas Grimal to be identified as the Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved, No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. English edition first published 1992 Reprinted 1993, 1994 First published in paperback 1994 Reprinted 1995, 1996, 1997 (twice), 1998, 1999 (twice), 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (twice), 2005 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Grimal, Nicolas-Christophe Histoire de l'Egypte ancienne. English] A history of ancient Egypt/Nicolas Grimal; translated by lan Shaw. Pp. em, Translation of: Histoire de l'Egypte ancienne. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-631-17472-9 (hbk. : alk. paper)—ISBN 0-631-19396-0 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Egypt History - To 332 B.C. L Title. DT83.G7513 1993 932'.01—dc20 92-9580 cre A aatalogue record for this title is available from the British Library. Set in 10 on 12 pt Sabon by Best-set Typesetter Ltd, Hong Kong, Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall The publisher's policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards. For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www-blackwellpublishing.comContents List of Illustrations Translator’s Note and Acknowledgements Introduction PARTI THE FORMATIVE PERIOD 1 From Prehistory to History 2 Religion and History 3 The Thinite Period PART Il THE CLASSICAL AGE The Old Kingdom Funerary Ideas The Struggle for Power The Middle Kingdom The Invasion wOUDAHE PART I] THE EMPIRE 9 The Tuthmosids 10 Akhenaten 11 The Ramessid Period 12. The Domain of Amun PART IV THE FINAL PHASE 13 The Third Intermediate Period 14 Nubians and Saites 15 Persians and Greeks 61 63 102 137 155 182 197 199 226 245 293 309 311 334 367vi Contents Conclusion Appendix: Chronology of Dynasties Glossary Bibliography Guide to Further Reading by Kent R. Weeks Index 383 389 396 404 484 490List of Illustrations PLATE 1 PLATE 2 PLATE 3 PLATE 4 PLATE 5 PLATE 6 PLATE 7 PLATE 8 PLATE 9 PLATE 10 PLATE 11 PLATE 12 PLATES The ‘Dancer’. Painted terracotta statuette from Ma‘amariya (excavations of H. de Morgan, 1907). Naqada II period, c.3650—3300 BC, h, 0.29 m. Copy of paintings in the predynastic ‘painted tomb’ at Hierakonpolis. The Narmer palette from Hierakonpolis. Schist, h. 0.64 m, recto and verso. Chephren protected by Horus. Seated statue from the valley temple of Chephren’s funerary complex at Giza. Fourth Dynasty, diorite, h. 1.68m. Djoser. Painted statue from the serdab of his mortuary temple at Saqqara. Third Dynasty, limestone, h. 1.35 m. Rahotep and Nofret. Painted, seated statues from their tomb at Maidum. Fourth Dynasty, limestone, h. 1.2m. The dwarf Seneb, with this wife and children. Painted group statue from Giza. Sixth Dynasty, limestone, h. 0.33 m. Stele of Nefertiabet. Fourth Dynasty, limestone, h. 0.36 m. View of the Saqqara Step Pyramid. Model of a group of archers from the tomb of Mesehti at Asyut. Tenth Dynasty, wood, h. 1.93 m. Head of Mentuhotpe Il. Eleventh Dynasty, sandstone, h. 0.38 m. Head from a statuette of Ammenemes III. Twelfth Dynasty, limestone, h. 0.12m. 26 6 38 96 99 100 104 108 156 169viii PLATE 13 piatE 14 piare 15 pLaTE 16 piate 17 pate 18 pLare 19 PLATE 20 piate 21 PLATE 22 PLATE 23 piaTe 24 FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2, FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 yIGURE 5 FIGURE 6 FIGURE 7 FIGURE 8 FIGURE 9 ricure 10 List of Illustrations Sphinx of Hatshepsut. Eighteenth Dynasty, red granite, h, 1.64m. Statue of Senenmut nursing Neferure. Fighteenth Dynasty, black granite, h. 0.76m. Akbenaten. Osirid colossal statue from Karnak East. Fighteenth Dynasty, sandstone, h. 3.10 m. Head of Queen Nefertiti Eighteenth Dynasty, painted limestone, h. 0.50m. Ramesses I! holding the eka scepere with his wife and Prince ‘Amonhirkhepeshet at bis feet. Granite statue from Karnak, h. 1.90. Scenes from the battle of Qadesh, temple of Ramesses That Abu Simbel. Nineteenth Dynasty ostracon showing a female acrobat. The Sacred Lake and the Temple of Amon-Re at Karnak. Detail of the Hypostyle Hall at the Temple of Amun, Karnak. Sphinx of Taharga- “Twenty-fifth Dynasty, granite, bh. 0.42 m. Mentuemhet, Prince of the City. End of the Twenty- fifth Dynasty, grey granite, h. 1.35 m. Relief of Nectanebo }- Thirticth Dynasty, basalt, h. 1.22m. FIGURES Chronological table of the end of the Late Palaeolithic period. Principal Neolithic sites in EeyPt Egyptian routes of southward expansion. North-south and east-west cross-sections of Snofru’s ‘chomboidal pyramid’ at Dahshur- Map of Egypt. showing locations of pyramid towns (numbers refer to table 2). Plan of the Giza plateau. Plan of Djoser’s Step Pyramid complex at Saqgara. Comparison between plans of (a) the tomb Chambers of a pyramid and (b) the pyramid complex as a whole. Cross-section of atypical mastaba. Deir el-Bahri: funerary complexes of Mentuhotpe Il and Hatshepsut. 208 210 231 P o a 348 349 378 20 25 86 109 11 120 121 125 129 174List of Illustrations ix URE 11 Reconstruction drawing of the mortuary temple of Mentuhotpe IL at Deir el-Bahri. 175 Map of Egypt and the Near East at the beginning of the New Kingdom. 203 Site of el-Amarna, east bank of the Nile. 236 General plan of Abydos. 249 iGURE 15 Troop movements in the battle of Qadesh. 254 General plan of Thebes. 262 Plan of Luxor Temple. 266 FIGURE 18 The temples of Medinet Habu. 273 s1cuRE 19 Schematic plan of the village at Deir el-Medina and several houses. 281 eicurE 20 General plan of the Karnak temples. 296 FIGURE 21 The constructions of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III at Karnak. 301 cicuRE 22 General plan of Tanis. 316 FIGURE 23 Political map of the Delta c.800 BC. 329 TABLES rasLe 1 Chronological table of the end of the Neolithic period. 30 TABLE 2 Family tree of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasty (generations 1-6). 68 raBLe 3 Table of major pyramids of the Old and Middle Kingdoms. 116 TABLE 4 Family tree of the early Eighteenth Dynasty (generations 1-4). 191 rABLE.S Simplified chronological table for Egypt and the ancient world in the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. 204 raBLe 6 Family tree of the late Eighteenth Dynasty (generations 9-11). 214 YABLE7 The royal family tree of the Twenty-first Dynasty. 312 TABLE 8 Chronological table of major powers in the Near East until the Kushite conquest. 320 rapt 9 Table of Near Eastern powers from the Kushite conquest to the end of the Saite period. 344Translator’s Note and Acknowledgements This translation of Nicolas Grimal’s Histoire de Egypte ancienne differs from the French edition in a number of ways. The text is illustrated by a different selection of plates, line drawings and tables, and the best avail- able English-language translations have been used in place of French translations of extracts from ancient Egyptian texts. The glossary and chronological appendix were compiled by the translator. The translator and publishers would like to acknowledge the fol- lowing for permission to reproduce extracts: ‘Aris & Phillips Ltd, for lines from Faulkner 1973-7; The British ‘Museum Press, for lines from Faulkner 1985; Oxford University Press, for lines from Gardiner 1961 and 1964; University of California Press, for lines from Lichtheim 1975, 1976, 1980; University of Chicago Press, for lines from Grene 1987.Introduction The compilation of a history of pharaonic Egypt is no longer as much of an adventure as it was at the turn of the century, when scientism was at its height and Gaston Maspero wrote his monumental work, Histoire des Peuples de I'Orient Ancien. Maspero’s work, along with James Henry Breasted’s History of Egypt, still forms the basis for most modern historical syntheses. It was not so long ago, however, that the combined influence of the Bible and the Classical tradition conspired to produce a rather incoherent view of Egyptian civilization, and the great chronological disputes inherited from the nineteenth century are a continuing legacy of this confusion. The disputes were generally between the adherents of a so-called ‘long’ chronology, based on a fairly unscientific use of textual sources, and those who proposed a ‘short’ chronology, which was founded on a less romantic and more archaeological view of history. Now, however, virtually all scholars adhere to the ‘short’ chronology. Although there is currently broad agreement on the course of its first two thousand years, recent advances in research have revived the problem of the beginnings of Egyptian history and the origins of pharaonic civilization. Despite the fact that Egyptology is one of the youngest of the historical disciplines (if it is considered to have begun with the work of Champollion 150 years ago), the increasing use of modern scientific methods has placed it in the forefront of research into the origins of civilization. Pharaonic culture has always been a source of fascination, even to those unable to understand the profundity of a system in which every- thing gives an impression of permanence and unchanging wisdom. The Greek travellers were particularly guilty of misrepresentation. Unable to convey a true sense of Egypt’s basic values to their Greek audience, they tended instead to use Egypt as a vehicle for the ideas which already2 Introduction interested them. They presented it as an impressive and mysterious fountainhead of human thought, where a remarkably advanced level of Gvilization had been achieved, but they clearly regarded Egyptian civilization simply as a stage 17 the development towards the perfect Greek version. Their descriptions of Egyptian culture were charac- terized both by unbridled enthusiasm and by a distinct sense of uncer tainty when they were confronted by customs of which they invariably misunderstood the origins. The Greeks embarked on a systematic exploration of the country: first there were the researches of Herodotus in the fifth century BC, then the works of geography by Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, both of whom familiarized themselves with the Nile valley through a prolonged stay ‘in the field’. Six hundred years later Plutarch documented the religious mysteries of Egypt. ‘As well as these contemporary investigations there were others based directly on the original Egyptian sources, which were rediscovered in the Ptolemaic period by the researches of such men as Manetho (c.280 BC) and the geographer Claudius Ptolemy (¢.150 BC). Even the Romans’ appreciation of Egypt was not solely due to the country’s wealth, although this was clearly the main attraction for Mark Antony, Julius Caesar, Germanicus, Hadrian, Severus and the rest. The researches of Pliny and Tacitus were similar to those of the Greek historians and geographers who had preceded them. Egypt was regarded as a place of great scholarly achievement by such disciples of ‘Aristotle as Theophrastus, and it served to assuage Rome’s great thirst for eastern values. The first evidence of increasing eastern influence on Rome dates to the beginning of the second century BC, when Cato persuaded the Senate to issue a decree forbidding Bacchanalian rites, which were considered to be a thinly disguised excuse for the celebra- Von of increasingly popular forcign religious cults. At the cost of a few thousand lives, traditional Roman values were thus temporarily saved from the uncontrollable spread of the East. The Greek cities continued to submit to the Roman imperium, which had inherited from Alexander a new concept of the East. Through ‘Alexander, the Hellenistic royalty had gained authority over the universe from the priesthood of Ra, and this in turn helped to legitimize Rome’s domination of the entire world. The union of the master of this world with Cleopatra, the last descendant (however fictitiously) of the pharaohs, was ‘Uffectively the marriage of Helios and Selene, finally consecrating the fusion between East and West. But the union was brief, and when Augustus arranged for the assassination of Caesarion (the son of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra) in 30 BC, after the capture of ‘Alexandria, he must have felt that he was removing as great @ threat to the nascent empire as the Bacchanalia had been to Cato’s republic.Introduction 3 pt, now the personal property of the emperor, had become just er of Rome’s vassal states. However, it still preserved its aura = wisdom and Icarning, which was revived and transmitted via the Mediterranean koine to the new Roman centre of the universe. Two images of Egypt were then superimposed on one another. The rst was that of the Hellenistic civilization of Egypt, which is recorded = the works of such writers as Theocritus. The cultures of the Greeks the Egyptians were blended successfully both in the works of spollonius of Rhodes and in the general currents of Alexandrian ght. The second image of Egypt was based on a tradition that can ready be described as ‘orientalizing’, illustrated by the writings of Apuleius or Heliodorus of Emesa. The orientalizing tradition continued ro emphasize the mysteries of the ancient civilization, while progressing along the same lines as the contemporary schools of philosophy. The appearance of Neoplatonism led to the Hermetic Corpus, a set of Josophical writings ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus (the Hellenistic version of the Egyptian god Thoth), which were compiled after the vival of Pythagorism, marking the beginning of the empire in the ast. The Hermetic Corpus, like the cabbala, was later to be the main neans of access to a civilization that had become incomprchensible to Christians. This movement towards esoterism was encouraged by the ead of Egyptian cults throughout the Roman Empire. Through the cures of Osiris, Isis and Anubis, the cults popularized the suffering of the archetypal Egyptian sovereign, perceived as one of the models for fe after death. Everything changed in AD 380 with the Emperor Theodosius’ jeclaration that Christianity was the state religion and all pagan cults were forbidden. With this edict he effectively silenced Egyptian avilization. The closure of Egyptian temples, which Constantius II had begun in AD 356, culminated in 391 with the massacre of the Serapeum priests at Memphis. This was not merely the prohibition of a set of religious practices but the abandonment of the culture from which they had sprung, since both had been preserved from one generation to another through the language and writing system of the priests. The Christians gained revenge for their persecution at the hands of the idolaters’ by destroying pagan temples and libraries and by massacring, the intellectual elite of Alexandria, Memphis and the Theban region. The last survivors of this onslaught were the ancient centres of Lower Nubia and Upper Egypt, and they endured only because they lay on the frontier of the Roman Empire, where there was already a long tradition of resistance to colonists from the north, From the mid-sixth century AD onwards, after the final closure of the temple of Isis at Philae, a veil of silence was drawn over the necropolises and temples, which werea” Introduction now vulnerable to pillaging and reuse. Chapels were used as houses and stables or simply quarried for building materials, while many sanctuaries were converted into churches. For more than five hundred years Karnak was to accommodate convents and monasteries, while on the walls the eyes of the ancient gods, hidden by coats of rough plaster, still peered out at the rites of the new religion. The pharaonic town sites were also doomed, for the annual Nile flood and the repeated exploitation of the same tracts of land meant that settlements continued to occupy the same locations, gradually covering most of the ancient towns. Modern Egyptian cities, mostly in the north but also in the south, represent only the final stage of a process of constant superimposition of settlements, often stretching back to the beginning of Egyptian history. Some of the ancient temples have managed to retain their reputations as sacred sites, as if the ancient peoples’ deep sense of religious syncretism had survived in their modern descendants, resulting in the protection of temple precincts containing thousands of years of stratigraphy. In the temple at Luxor, the layers that separate the level of the court of Ramesses II from the mosque of Abu Haggag cover a period of more than two thousand years. The site was subject to successive waves of Persian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman invasions. In the Roman period a military camp was established on it and the whole range of Roman imperial cults was celebrated, as well as Christianity and Islam. Abu Haggag, the holy man to whom the mosque is dedicated, is still the object of an annual religious procession, complete with sacred barques reminiscent of those which conveyed the image of the god Amon-Re from one temple to another, Luxor is by no means unique: there are numerous sites preserved in this way throughout the Nile valley and the Delta, as well as more distant locations such as the Dakhla Oasis, where the mosque of the ancient Ayubbid capital of cl-Qasr is founded on layers of stratigraphy teaching down to the Eighteenth Dynasty and possibly even to the Middle Kingdom. Archaeologists may delight in these accumulations of past debris, but it is clear that in the short term at least, the historian cannot find his answers there. The social and economic structures of the Egyptians were transformed and distorted when they became subject to the laws of the Roman Empire; they lost their language, their religion and their traditional values. Egyptian Christianity, which justifiably claimed historical and religious primacy in the Near East, produced a civilization as rich and original in its art as in its intellectual achievements. Coptic Egypt made a fresh start, sweeping aside the old traditions and giving full rein instead to popular culture, which was a far cry from the religiousIntroduction 5 canons of the period. The undeniable influence of the vernacular in art and architecture can be seen in the flourishing of figured tapestry and in che extraordinary funerary portraits popularized by the Faiyum schools of art. Coptic art also prefigured the Islamic revival of ornamental decoration and the introduction of the cupola in architecture. In the mid-third century AD the monastic movement was founded by Paul the Feyptian, and the continued vigour of this tradition even now is proof enough of its significance within Egypt's heritage. The Islamic regime was relatively flexible and tolerant at the time of the Arab conquest, but gradually it grew more stringent in its demands on Egyptian society. New values developed, laying the foundations of contemporary Egyptian society and moving further away from those of the pharaonic period. The ancient religious tradition, acquiring new themes from such scholiasts as Pseudo-Berosus, survived the oppressors of the true faith: Ramesses II became first the adversary of Moses and then the personification of evil itself. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century and the creation of the Arab Republic of Egypt that Ramesses — re-established as a historical figure — could finally take his place amid the ups and downs of contemporary politics as a symbol of the united Arab nation and, more generally, of the past glory of Egypt. The Egyptians’ memory of the pharaohs began to fade from the fifth century AD onwards, and the gradual ascendancy of Arab over Copt eventually expunged the last links with the ancient world. Legend took over from history, just as when the pharaohs’ subjects themselves had told tales of their rulers worthy of the Arabian Nights. All too soon the clandestine digging that was itself an intrinsic part of Egypt’s past was beginning to provide glimpses of its great riches, Works such as the Book of Buried Treasure began to circulate, guiding treasure-hunters nto a world peopled by such spirits as the gnome Aitallah (a version of the dwarf-god Bes), a terrible ogress modelled on the goddess Sekhmet, and the giantess Saranguma. The wise men of the time took pleasure in mocking the lunatics who pursued such delusions. The historian Ibn Khaldun castigated the madness of the treasure-hunters, but this did not prevent the Caliph al-Mamun, son of the famous Harun al-Raschid, from pillaging Cheops’ pyramid. A process of pillaging and quarrying was inaugurated, which was to strip the Giza pyramids of their mystery as well as their outer casing of fine limestone blocks, which were reused to build the palaces of Mamluk and Ottoman Cairo. The relics of the past, which were everywhere exposed to the ravages of treasure-hunters, quarriers and lime-burners, were also transformed by the country’s new occupants. Some great achievements and deep belicfs survived almost unchanged through individuals such as Abu Haggag. But the general tendency when faced with the incomprehen-6 Introduction sible was to rely on the only approach that could be trusted: the sacred texts. Christians, like Muslims, carried out research into these sources. They saw Egypt as a Biblical land ranging from Babylon to the route of the Exodus, to which both Copts and western Christians made their way. Westerners discovered the country in the course of pilgrimage: and crusades to the Holy Land, but their view was coloured by tradi- tions inherited from the Greco-Byzantine civilization. The most famous example of such misinformation is the very word that they used to describe the great stone structures they passed on their way to the holy places: the word ‘pyramid’ is Greek in origin. It referred to a cake of wheat, and it may be that the shape of the pyramids reminded the first tourists of such delicacies. Subsequently, the term ‘wheat cake’ was used to support a belief that the pyramids were actually grain silos, for their true role had been forgotten, It would have seemed quite feasible to medieval pilgrims that the pyramids should have been the granaries in which Joseph stored grain for the years of famine, since Egypt was at that time still a great exporter of cereals. These Biblical versions of history were tempered with hints of the lost wonders of pharaonic Egypt. Since the beginning of the fourth century AD the Roman emperors had been fascinated by these traces of Egypt’s more distant past, and their great collections of obelisks and Egyptian art are now part of the riches of Rome and Istanbul. At the time of the European Renaissance there was a revival of exotic architecture, and Egyptianizing sphinxes jostled with stone or wooden pyramids in European gardens. However, it was not until after the Ottoman conquest, in the second half of the sixteenth century, that Egypt became enduringly fashionable; at this time the renewal of commercial activitics allowed France to play an entrepreneurial role in the Middle East, like that played earlier by Veni The tales written by western travellers in Egypt, who were following in the footsteps of such Arab predecessors as Abu Salih, Ibn Battuta and Ibn Jobair, were mostly in the same romantic style. Noteworthy among these were the pilgrimage of the Dominican monk Felix Fabri or the journey of the botanist Pierre Belon du Mans in the entourage of the French ambassador sent to the Sublime Porte (the Ottoman government in Constantinople) just after the conquest. These tales are usually true to the rules of their genre, as with Jean Palerne, Joos van Ghistele (en route for the mysterious kingdom of Prester John), Michael Heberer von Bretten, Samuel Kiechel, Jan Sommer and many others. Perhaps it is precisely because they are written in so artificial a style that the accounts are so popular. This bricf summary of early travellers in Egypt should also include writers such as Ahmad ben Ali Magrizi or, closer in time to the trav-Introduction g cllers mentioned above, Leo Africanus. Certain individuals, such as Christophe Harant, set out in the footsteps of the Classical authors essentially Strabo and Diodorus Siculus), many of whose works were published for the first time at the end of the fifteenth century. Others attempted to pursue a more scientific path: the geographer André Thevet and the Italian physician Prospero Alpini. Alpini combined the results of four years’ travel in Egypt with a deep knowledge of the work of his predecessors from Herodotus to Belon du Mans, and produced three books on the flora, fauna and medicine of Egypt which are still classics of their type. Seventeenth-century travellers might be expected to have followed up this more scientific view of Egypt, or at least to have left better documented accounts of their experiences. But this is by no means the case, despite the growing fashion for orientalism and the appearance of such Turkish-influenced literary works as Bourgeois Gentilhomme, in which merchants, diplomats or tourists confined themselves to conventional and often inaccurate descriptions rarely covering anything more exotic than the area around Cairo. Items of useful information about Egypt appeared only rarely and were essentially pragmatic, intended more as practical travel-guides than as scientific or historical accounts. This was certainly the case with George Christoff von Neitzschitz, Don Aquilante Rocchetta and Johann Wild, whose ad- ventures are worthy of a picaresque novel. Their concerns were very much with the contemporary East, and their accounts dealt with brief journeys or long stays in the bosom of the new ‘French nation’ of Egypt — Pére Coppin is a good example of this type. ‘The seventeenth century was also the period when ‘curiosity cabinets’ became popular, reviving the fashion for antiquities and foreshadowing the great collections that were to form the basis of the major European museums. Travellers and scholars undertook the rediscovery of Egyptian civilization, which was marked primarily by chance finds of mummies These were ground into a powder which was said to be able to regen- erate the cultivable lands that the European powers had seized. In Britain, so-called ‘mummy mills’ were even constructed to satisfy the insatiable demand. Europeans read the works of the ancient writers yoraciously, and before the nincteenth century Herodotus was still the most common guidebook to be taken on a journey to Egypt. Some important figures stand out among these travellers, who had become more ‘professional’ since Thévenot: archaeologists and anti- quaries such as Pére Vansleb, Paul Lucas and Claude Fourmont, doctors such as Granger, and explorers such as Poncet and Marie-Alexandre Lenoir. Ancient Egypt was gradually becoming better known through the published descriptions of some of the principal sites. The existence8 Tutroduction of Karnak had been known since the end of the fifteenth century from the map of Ortelius and the description given by an anonymous Venetian, but in about 1668 the site itself was rediscovered, and almost a century later the city of Memphis was also revealed. In 1646 the first work devoted exclusively to the pyramids was published by the English mathematician John Greaves. In the eighteenth century important scientific studies of Egypt began to be published by such scholars as Norden, Pococke, Donati, the relations of Pére Sicard, Volney, Balthazar de Monconys (the friend of Athanasius Kircher, whose works inspired Champollion), Savary and many others, all variously preparing the ground for the Napoleonic expedition to Egypt, which represented a watershed in Egyptology. ‘The conflicts between the European nations as the French Revolution drew to a close, led to great opportunities and an almost unlimited field of research to satisfy European scholars’ thirst for knowledge. The young savants who travelled with Bonaparte’s army embarked on a monu- mental Description de I'Egypte, which embraced not only flora and fauna but also the architecture and art which comprised the surviving evidence for each successive civilization in Egypt. Over a period of months, the Napoleonic expedition painstakingly assembled a great mass of documents which not only provided the decipherers of hieroglyphs with the necessary corpus of written material but even laid the foundations for many modern syntheses. From then on orientalism was a genuine literary and artistic movement rather than a mere fad. The number of works dealing with Egypt multiplied, from Gerard de Nerval to Eugene Delacroix, as part of the “Egyptian Revival’ style. James Owen and David Roberts produced excellent paintings, combining oricntalizing themes with an almost archaeological precision. There were also numerous nineteenth-century paintings associated not so much with Egypt specifically as with the birth of the colonial age, including the works of Gérome (who visited the Sinai in the company of Paul Renoir and Bonnat on the occasion of the opening of the Suez Canal), Fromentin, Guillaumet and Belly (whose Pilgrims to Mecca caused a scandal at the Salon of 1861). During the same period, the work of Thomas Young in England and Jean-Frangois Champollion in France laid the foundations of modern Egyptology. Champollion was beset by numerous problems, firstly in the form of the political changes that propelled him from Grenoble to Paris and Figeac, and secondly in the scientific authorities’ resistance to his methods. But in 1822, in the Lettre a M. Dacier, he revealed the basic elements of his method for deciphering hieroglyphs, which was further developed the following year in a Precis du systeme hiéroglyphique. While his detractors were still looking for a flaw in his system ofIntroduction 9 pherment, he buried himself in the growing collections of Egyptian ‘iquities brought to Europe by a new generation of adventurers. To ninetcenth-century travellers Egypt must have held all the attractions of a new world, as they skimmed through the sites on behalf of their foreign consuls, deriving enormous profits from the exploitation of the country which was permitted during the time of Muhammad Ali and his successors. There was great rivalry between Giovanni Belzoni, who was acting on behalf of Henry Salt (the British consul in Cairo), and Bernardino Drovetti, who was sponsored by Jacques Rifaud of Marseilles, among others. These epic confrontations, closer to pillaging than archaeology, provided some of the first works in the collections of the British Museum, the Louvre and the Museo Egizio, Turin. It was the collection at Turin, amassed by Drovetti and sold in 1824 to the King of Sardinia, which allowed Champollion to become the first Egyptologist to make full use of the ancient king lists. He also wrote a Panthéon, the first study of Egyptian religion, finally completing it in Egypt in 1823. He compiled an cnormous mass of documents which would be published forty years after his death as Monuments d’Egypte ¢ de Nubie. When he returned to Paris he barely had time to teach a few courses in the chair of Egyptology created for him at the Collége de France before he died on 4 March 1832, at the age of forty-two. He had by then firmly established the basic components of the Egyptian language in his Grammaire égyptienne, which was eventually published in 1835, France was in the forefront of the new science of Egyptology, and this role was to be consolidated by the work of Champollion’s suc- cessors, especially by the fieldwork of Auguste Mariette. The excavation methods which Mariette used at great sites such as Saqqara and Tanis are virtually indefensible compared with modern archacology, but he was not content merely to be the fortunate excavator of sites such as the Serapeum, Karnak and Tanis: he also fully exploited his own discoveries and any other work of which he was aware. It was through his determination that the viceroy Said Pasha was persuaded to set up the National Antiquities Service, an organization with powers to end the massive drain of antiquities into European collections and to amass instead a collection of antiquities within Egypt. From the Bulaq Museum to the modern Egyptian Museum in Cairo, the largest collection of material remains from ancient Egypt began to be gathered together. At the same time, the newly established Anti- quities Service gradually began to safeguard sites for scientific exca- vation by clamping down on pillaging. The rivalries which divided the European nations for almost a century had no real effect on the work of their nationals in Egypt except during periods of actual war. The10 Introduction Prussian expedition of 1842-5 and the Denkmdler aus Agypten und Athiopien, published ten years later by Richard Lepsius, provided the scientific community with a third corpus of inscriptions and monuments still used by modern scholars. By the end of the nineteenth century Egyptology was definitely established as a field of research; it had also reached another turning point in its history, both in terms of discoveries in the field and in the creation of institutions capable of ensuring its continued development. Gaston Maspero was the most important of Mariette’s successors: he discovered the Pyramid Texts, served as Director of the Antiquities Service, and managed to save most of the royal mummies at Thebes from pillagers. He was also the founder of the French Ecole, succeeding de Rougé to occupy Champollion’s chair. Henri Brugsch, Sir Flinders Petrie and Gaston Maspero are considered to have been the fathers of modern Egyptology, and it was Petrie who laid down the rules of scientific archaeology in Egypt with the establishment of the British School of Archaeology. By the turn of the twenticth century the European museums and universities had created a number of organizations within which modern researchers still operate: the French Archaeological Mission (which was formed in 1880 and became the French Institute for Oriental Archaeology at Cairo in 1898), the Egypt Exploration Fund (which later became the Egypt Exploration Society) and the German Oriental Society. Improvements in communications with the media were then to provide maximum publicity for the ensuing discoveries, which included the capital city of Akhenaten at Tell cl-Amarna before the First World War, the tomb of Tutankhamun in 1922, the necropolis of the Tanite kings in 1939, the great boat of Cheops in 1954, and the rescue campaign for the monuments of Nubia in the 1960s. It was the treasure of Tutankhamun which particularly popularized Egyptology, especially with the travelling exhibition that took place in the 1970s — the success of which was to lead to various others on similar themes. But the mystery that seemed to surround the discovery of Tutank- hamun’s tomb also revived a mystical interest in Egypt, still more or less fuelled by the influences of Hermeticism and the cabbala, and marked by secret societies requiring elaborate initiation ceremonies. ‘This mystical tendency led to the development of the theme of Isis-worship in such works as the Magic Flute and Aida, tor which Mariette wrote the libretto; the celebration of the cult of Isis at Notre-Dame in Paris during the Revolution; and numerous csotcric interpretations of such aspects of Egyptian civilization as the pyramids and religion. Howard Carter’s discovery provided the public with its classic image of Egypto- logy, more by the sheer quantity of precious objects than by the tomb’sIntroduction 11 historical importance (which was not fully exploited until later). It was a mixture of mystery with treasures and curses — two words firmly linked with the pharaohs — that created a romantic aura around the Egyptologist. The combined effect of all these elements and the rapid development of mass tourism have inevitably increased the gap between the public image and the reality of Egyptology as a field of research. The fact that Egyptology is still a relatively young subject tends to be minimized, as does the amount of ground still to be covered before a civilization as rich as that of Egypt can be understood in detail. As a result of progress in the archacology of Egypt ‘before the pharaohs’, the conventional chronological limits of Egyptian civilization have been called into question — the subject has now moved a long way from the ‘forty centuries’ which separated Napoleon from the time of the pyramids. Having freed the history of Egypt from the grip of Biblical chronology, the new knowledge and methodology acquired since the end of the nineteenth century have gradually clarified the chronology and pushed back the origins of the civilization. The question of the true meaning of the term ‘history’ is perhaps more relevant to ancient Egyptian civilization than to any other culture. The exceptionally long duration of the pharaonic period with its rigid social system, tends to highlight the classic distinction between history and prehistory, in which the appearance of writing acts as an implicit barrier between the two. This change from prehistory to history is supposed to have taken place, in Egypt’s case, in the fourth millennium BC. Until the 1970s this date was relatively well accepted, since it more or less corresponded with Biblical times in Mesopotamia, and was a sufficiently late date to give Lower Mesopotamian civilization a ‘head start’ on Egypt, thus ensuring that the place where writing first appeared was also the supposed location of the Garden of Eden. The fourth millennium also conveniently appeared to be a phase during which human evolution had reached a decisive stage, with the emer- gence of social structures suggesting man’s final separation from the natural world, over which he gained control by becoming a sedentary cultivator in the Nile‘and Euphrates valleys. The achievement of ‘civilization’ is indicated archaeologically by the introduction of writing, and this level of achievement is casy to distinguish from the preceding ‘preparatory’ phase. However, the length of the preparatory phase — which very much depends on when it is considered to have started — tends to be maximized by prehistorians and minimized by historians. This problem, which until the 1930s was considered to be a kind of Darwinian quarrel, acquired a new dimension when the system of12 Introduction dating with reference to fluvial erosion was adopted, The system was created by Boucher de Perthes for the Somme valley, and applied to the Nile by K. $. Sandford and A. J. Arkell. The establishment of an association between traces of human activity and geological banding supplied a point of contact with the archaeological data which, al- though invariably unstratified, could nevertheless be arranged in a chronological order by the use of the ‘sequence dating’ system worked out by Petrie at the beginning of the century. Although more recent analyses of palacoclimatology and geology (such as the work of Karl Butzer and Rushdi Said) have modified the scale of the dates, it has been clear since the Sccond World War not only that ‘prehistory’ before the pharaohs was expanding on a hitherto unsuspected scale, but also that it appeared to be so diverse and self-contained that it was difficult to regard it as simply a ‘preparatory’ stage for the dynastic period. The state of knowledge of Egyptian prehistory in the late twentieth century is still fragmentary despite the basic fieldwork of Gertrude Caton-Thompson in the Faiyum region and the Kharga Oasis, and the work of J. Hester and P, Hoebler in the Dungul Oasis. ‘The information provided by the systematic exploration of Lower Nubia has not been completely published and other arcas are still relatively unexplored, such as the Dakhla Oasis, Gebel Uweinat and, further to the west, Kufra and Darfur. Without even going so far in space or time, our knowledge of earliest Egypt is still very patchy. Studies since World War Il, particularly in the Delta, have revealed further predynastic evidence, but it is significant that the prehistoric remains at Elkab were only discovered by the Belgian archaeologist Pierre Vermeersch as recently as 1968. The true significance of prehistory as ‘history without texts’ has only reached its full extent since anthropologists and ethnologists began to reveal civilizations such as those in pre-Columbian America or black Africa, in which a high degree of sophistication was achieved without any written tradition. This has led to a revision of the criteria by which levels of social complexity are assessed. Such a change in perspective has, in its turn, led to the adoption of prehistorians’ methods outside the field of prehistory itself, so that archaeologists in Egypt are more interested in the relative chronology of historical sites than was pre- viously the case. After more than a century of fieldwork, Egyptologists — now faced with a relative dearth of sites containing inscribed blocks and papyri — have turned to the excavation of sites which had pre- viously been neglected because of their lack of written evidence. The exploitation of settlement sites undertaken over the last twenty years both within and outside the Nile valley has often taken the form of rescue excavations or surveys, carried out when sites are threatenedIntroduction 13 by the rapid expansion of urban conglomerations. This development has rendered obsolete the old Egyptological distinction between phil- ology and archaeology, whereby the former was the only means of nterpreting the civilization and the latter was simply the ancillary discipline devoted to the basic task of acquiring documents. The willingness of modern Egyptologists to absorb new points of view has tended to favour the adoption of newer and more accurate techniques of dating. All the methods based on measurements of radio- activity (including radiocarbon, thermoluminescence and_potassium- argon dating), as well as such other techniques as dendrochronology and palynology, have thus become relatively common within the discipline. Research methods have also improved, with the increasing use of aerial photography, topographical and architectural surveys using stereophotogrammetry, computer analysis of data, and the development of methods of axonometric reconstruction using computer graphics. Apart from the purely technical advances that have been made, these innovative methods have also changed the attitudes of Egyptological researchers: now potsherds, grains of pollen and fragments of papyrus are all treated as equally important aspects of the evidence. Faced with such a multiplicity of archaeological sources, the act of writing a history of Egypt necessarily incorporates the skills of many other disciplines,Part I The Formative Period1 From Prehistory to History GENERAL OUTLINE. The immediate impression of Egyptian civilization is of a coherent entity, the extraordinary duration of which has guaranteed it a special place in the history of mankind. The culture seems to have emerged, already fully formed, towards the middle of the fourth millennium BC, eventually vanishing at the end of the fourth century AD. For almost forty centuries Egypt possessed an air of unchanging stability and a political system that did not appear to be shaken by anything — even the occasional invasion. The internal geographical unity of the country perhaps contributed to the apparent lack of change. Egypt is a long strip of cultivable land stretching for more than a thousand kilometres between the latitudes of 24 and 31 degrees north. It centres on the lower course of the Nile, carved out from Aswan to the Mediterranean and wedged between the Libyan plateau and the Eastern Desert (which is in fact only an extension of the Nubian desert). Although the width of the valley rarely exceeds 14 kilometres, the Nile valley has been one of the most in- habitable parts of eastern Africa for approximately a million years (from the Oldowan phase onwards), while the Sahel region, on the other hand, was transformed into an arid zone by radical climatic changes. Nevertheless, the traditional image of the Nile valley — as an area that was always welcoming to man — needs to be modified to some extent, since the general overview of Egyptian prehistory has been altered by the results of recent geomorphological studies. New evidence has been made available through the prospection of desert zones and western subdeserts, firstly in connection with the Aswan High Dam project and secondly during the process of searching the Libyan Desert for new land capable of replacing the alluvial soil of the Nile valley,18 The Formative Period which is rapidly being exhausted. Through improved knowledge of the gencral mechanisms of soil formation, particularly in the work of Rushdi Said and the surveys of Romuald Schild and Fred Wendorf (the results of which have been published over the last few years), it is now possible to update the theories put forward at the beginning of this century, theories which are still frequently quoted in general books. One recurrent question in Egyptian prehistory is the role played by the lacustrine depressions of the Libyan plateau, which were eventually to be transformed into the modern string of oases. Current excavations at the oases are producing a better appreciation of the role that these depressions played in the migration of civilized groups towards the Nile valley: certain qulifications have now been introduced into the theory of the ‘Ur Nil’ (a huge ancestral version of the Nile}, which would have been created after the retreat of the Eocene sea between the Libyan dunes and the area of the modern Nile valley. A similar note of caution has also been sounded with regard to the concept of the Nile as a primeval valley of luxuriant fertility when it was first inhabited by man. THE FORMATIVE PFRIOD The question of when the Nile valley was first occupied leads naturally to consideration of the age and geographical spread of Egyptian culture. How does one identify the factors which gave rise to the earliest Pharaonic civilization and at the same time pay duc attention to the characte! 's of the lengthy prehistoric phase that preceded it? The evidence suggests a starting point for Egyptian prehistory at the end of the Abbassia Pluvial period in the Middle Palacolithic (c.120,000-—90,000 BC). In fact, a grossly oversimplified scenario might be that the desert was gradually being populated during the long Abbassia Pluvial period and that this zone was eventually opened up to the expansion of the Acheulcan culture which was developing on the banks of the Nile. This was the last stage in a process of development that can be traced back to the remains discovered near the rock temple at Abu Simbel, the earliest of which probably date to the end of the Lower Pleistocene, about 700,000 BC. From the end of the Oldowan period onwards (i.c. throughout the Achculean), there was a continuous human presence in the Egyptian and Nubian sections of the Nile valley, from Cairo to Thebes and Adaima. This phase of the Lower Pleistocene was a long transitional period of hyperaridity lasting for about a million years between the Pliocene and Edfon Pluvials, both of which were characterized by regular and heavy rainfall. For about 100,000 years the Proto-Nile carved out its course toFrom Prehistory to History 19 the west of the modern Nile valley, to be eventually replaced by the Pre- Nile, which was to endure for five times as long. THE FIRST INHABITANTS At the end of this long sequence came the Abbassia Pluvial, a period of almost 15,000 years during which the Acheulean culture was able to spread into the western regions. If this diffusion actually happened, it should certainly be regarded as the origin of the connections between the Nilotic and African civilizations. Traces of these connections are preserved in the later evolution of the two cultures without, however, indicating whether they reflect a change, or the way in which this change might have taken place. It is tempting to interpret the Nilotic and African civilizations as opposite sides of the same culture, which would have advanced along the obvious natural routes from the region that was to become the Sahara. Both the diffusion of the Nilo-Saharan languages from the high valley of the Nile into the eastern Sahara and the recent palynological analyses in the oases of the Libyan desert have made an important contribution to this assessment. Consequently, a set of flora corresponding to a common process of development has been identified. ‘This apparent link is particularly plausible in that it coincides with the change from Homo erectus to Homo sapiens around 100,000 BC, and with the establishment of a common culture represented by a dolichocephalic human type, the evolution of which has been compared to that of contemporaneous humans in North Africa and Europe. It is essential to remain cautious in this kind of assertion however, since the African side of the situation is still poorly known and the Egyptian evidence itself is far from complete. The lacustrine depressions of the Eastern Desert provided the late Acheulean and Mousterian cultures (¢.50,000—30,000 BC) with a dis- tinctive habitat which is characterized by the presence in the archae- ological record of ostrich eggs and possibly even the remains of an ancestor of the onager. The end of the Acheulean was marked by a sudden technological revolution — the change from bifacial to flake tools. This artefactual change was to be a longlasting feature of African cultures, corresponding well to the new social conditions. This period lasted until about 30,000 BC and can be correlated with the Mousterian and Aterian phases. It represented the end of the hunting economy that had evolved in the savannah, culminating in the Aterian culture with its use of the bow and arrow. The Aterian culture, which was wide- spread throughout the Maghreb and southern Sahara and survived for a20 The Formative Period Dates Nile phases Nubia Ue Ene 18,000 BC. I Khormusan 17,000 BC Talfan Ballana — 16,000 8c Masmas | = le 4 Kom Ombo |) A. 5,000 BC Dabarosan Gemaian akburian 15,000 BC. abarosai + e 1 Sebekian 14,000 BC 4 v 4 13,000 BC Ballana AT Sisian v 1 4 12.000 8C Tay ‘Qa Sebiian vY¥ 11,000 BC 10,000 BC FIGURE 1 Chronological table of the end of the Late Palaeolithic period. long time in Sudanese Nubia and the oases of the Libyan Desert, could well have been the last stage of an original common African culture. HUNTERS AND AGRICULTURALISTS The Khormusan culture was named after the site of Khor Musa, located some distance from Wadi Halfa, where traces were found of a civili- zation which began in the Middle Palaeolithic (c.45,000 BC) and had disappeared by the Late Palacolithic (c.20,000 BC). Compared with the Aterian culture, the Khormusan was more reliant on the river valley, combining the subsistence of the savannah — exploiting wild cattle, antelopes and gazelles — with the products of fishing, thus demon- strating that the populations driven out of the Saharan zones by drought were adapting to the Nilotic environment. During this period — when the Subpluvial Makhadma was being replaced by the arid phase of the Neo-Nile, which has lasted until modern times — the Nile valley was a crucible in which the various elements of the future pharaonic civilization were blended together. The desertification of the Saharan zones seems to have driven even the inhabitants of the Libyan oases into the Nile valley. They made up separate groups, each developing a unique way of life which was nevertheless based on a common source, sometimes paralleled by local industries such as those found at Gebel Suhan, The next turning point was between 15,000 and 10,000 BC, whenFrom Prehistory to History 21 in Nubia the Gemaian period replaced the Halfan; the Dabarosan succeeded the Khormusan; and the use of the microlith, which was already perceptible in the second half of the Halfan phase, had by the Ballana period definitely taken place. The Qadan culture, represented at more than twenty sites from the Second Cataract to Toshka, constituted an important stage of development both in its stone tools, which were characteristically microlithic, and in its signs of economic development. Some Qadan tools show traces of ‘sickle gloss’, which is commonly interpreted as evidence for the beginnings of agriculture. Pollen analyses have con- firmed the presence of Gramineae (a wheat-like grass) and — at Esna at least — wild barley. However, this agricultural experiment — if that is the right word for it — does not appear to have lasted beyond the turn of the tenth millennium: It is perhaps too early to formulate large-scale theories, but it seems likely that the population explosion brought about by this Qadan agricultural development might have led to the rise of a more warlike culture, the growth of which would have been detrimental to agri- culturalists. This earliest form of agriculture, although short-lived, appeared in the Nile valley at a time when cultivation was still un- known in the Near East; nevertheless, the evidence is insufficient either to support a truly Nilotic origin of agriculture or to call into question the Near Eastern roots of the type of agricultural society that developed in the Nile valley at the end of the Mesolithic. The archaeological material from the Qadan proto-agricultural sites — including evidence concerning the distribution of children’s as opposed to adults’ tombs. (Hoffman 1979: 94) and details of the overall lifestyle of their occu- pants — bears many points of resemblance to that of Neolithic culture: Evidence for the period of transition from the Qadan phase to the Neolithic has been provided by the discoveries of Pierre Vermeersch at the site of Elkab. The earliest remains at Elkab were contemporary with the change from the Arkinian to the Sharmakian in the neighbourhood of Wadi Halfa and the end of the Qarunian phase in the Faiyum region, in which a hunting culture adapted-to the Nilotic environment by becoming a community of fishers but not agriculturalists. The transition to agriculture took place in conditions that are still a little unclear, around the middle of the sixth millennium BC. The influence of the Near East is thought to have been involved, despite the earlier indi- genous attempt at agriculture and notwithstanding the fact that the first domesticated animals were distinctly African types. The development of agriculture in Egypt clearly took place over a long period, and recent research such as the survey conducted in the Theban region by the University of Krakow and the German Archaeological Institute at Cairo22 The Formative Period (Ginter, Kozlowski and Pawlikowski 1985: 40-1) shows that it was a Process incorporating various separate phases. THE EMERGENCE OF THE NEOLITHIC The eventual break between prehistory and history took place at the end of the seventh millennium BC. This event, separating the Mesolithic from the Neolithic, is even more poorly known than earlier phases (Finkenstaedt 1985: 144ff.). Virtually all environmental and cultural factors seem to have contributed to a radical modification of the nature of Egyptian civilization, with the onset of a new subpluvial period that favoured animal domestication and the development of agriculture at the fringes of the Nile valley and in the area of the western oases. This environmental change accelerated the development of textile and ceramic production techniques, and during the two thousand years, from the beginning of the Neolithic to the emergence of the predynastic petiod proper (from the mid-seventh to mid-fifth millennium BC) virtually all the essential characteristics of Egyptian civilization ap- peared. Despite the introduction of various metals, this Neolithic culture was to remain essentially stone-based throughout its existence. Apart from the Nubian groups and the Elkab sequence described above, the last phase of Egyptian prehistory is particularly exemplified by a number of sites in the Faiyum (phase B then phase A in about the middle of the sixth millennium) and by various sites in the Nile valley itself, including el-Badari (Hemamia) and Deir Tasa at the southern end of Lower Egypt, and Merimda Beni Salama and el-Omari near Helwan (now a suburb of modern Cairo). These sites provide evidence of a mixture of bunting traditions and new developments (Huard and Leclant 1980). There was an improvement in weapons, with the introduction of sharp arrowheads worked from polished flint and the growing use of bone harpoons, part of the classic toolkit of the fisherman. It was in this early period that the archetypal cultural image of the Nilotic environ- ment first developed. This image was perpetuated in scenes of hunting and fishing in the marshes which were later painted on tomb walls in the pharaonic period, recalling a time when agriculture was first establishing its grip over the untamed world. The development of organized society took place on an agricultural basis: settlements tended to consist of farms devoted to animal husbandry and the cul- tivation of crops. Granaries were used to preserve the products of the fields (mainly wheat and barley), In addition to the production of pottery and basketry, Egyptians of the Neolithic period were already weaving linen and processing animal skins, as well as rearing sheep,From Prehistory to History 23: goats, pigs and cows. Such agricultural practices as these went through little subsequent change over the course of the following millennia. Egyptian funerary practices experienced a change which paralleled the switch from hunting to agriculture. Graves were gradually placed further away from the settlements, eventually taking up a position outside the world of the living, at the edge of the cultivable land. The deceased was given provisions in the form of cereals and food offerings, but he also took hunting gear into the hereafter, as well as the necessary equipment, such as pottery, for a continued rural existence. Laid out on his side in a contracted position, he embarked on a journey that was already oriented towards the western horizon, bathed in sunlight every evening after the sun had left the land of the living. Since the systematic study of the Neolithic sites in the Nile valley is still far from complete, it is too early to say whether the distribution of known sites is simply the result of chance discoveries or whether it reflects real differences between the south and north of the country. One clear impression is that the northern sites (between Cairo and the Faiyum) had a superior lithic industry, with fine flint weapons and stone vases; the southern sites were characterized by higher quality pottery, red with a black border and decorated with inlay, which was to become the hallmark of the predynastic period. The implications of the real or perceived differences between north and south are far-reaching: they affect the interpretation of the whole process of the unification of Egypt's two lands, the duality of which continues to be stressed throughout the dynastic period. The process of unification took a little over a millennium, from about 4500 to 3150 BC, and throughout this period the differences between the two cultural groups appear quite distinet — in later times they became more vague, but total fusion seems never to have been achieved. The emergence of the dynastic period roughly coincided with the appearance of metal- working, but its impact was not as great as might be expected: for a long time copper was only used to a small degree, and the change in artefacts was far from abrupt. Four phases can now be distinguished between the beginning of the Chalcolithic period and the Thinite period. THE ‘PRIMITIVE’ PREDYNASTIC (BADARIAN AND FATYUM A) ‘The first Chalcolithic phase (the ‘primitive’ predynastic, lasting from the sixth to the fifth millennium) corresponds to the final stage in the development of the Faiyum A culture in the north and the Badarian culture in the south, The differences between north and south were still24 The Formative Period ptimarily in the areas of stone-working, pottery manufacture and the production of flint tools and weapons, which were perhaps more advanced in the north and had already begun to resemble the late Old Kingdom industries of the Libyan Desert oases. There are, for instance, the magnificent, skilfully retouched knives found by Gertrude Caton- Thompson, which recall those from Balat in the Dakhla Oasis. But it is advisable to remain cautious, since Badarian flint-working, particularly for arrowheads, could be equally sophisticated. The difference between the two groups (Faiyam A and Badarian) lay mainly in the relative proportions of their hunting and fishing, activities, as opposed to agri- culture; the population of the Faiyum, like the later peoples of the oases, certainly continued to obtain a greater percentage of their food by such non-agrarian means. However, alongside more predictable advances in furniture and agricultural equipment there was also a perceptible development in funerary practices which involved both of these aspects of the ‘primi- tive’ predynastic culture. The deceased might still be buried under the simple protection of an animal skin, but the tomb began to take on a more solid architectural appearance. The plastic arts — destined for a long process of development in Egyptian civilization — also began to be practised: the production of black-topped pottery (described above) reached a sophisticated level; bone and ivory objects such as combs, cosmetic spoons and female figurines became particularly common (the latter had exaggerated sexual chacteristics, anticipating the later ‘concubines’ that were used to regenerate the sexual powers of the deceased). There were also items of jewellery and amulets in the form of human figures or animals, made of a substance that can already be correctly described as ‘Egyptian faience’ (Hoffman 1979: 138-9, figs 38-9). THE ‘OLD PREDYNASTIC’ (NAQADA I OR AMRATIAN) PERIOD ‘The appearance of the ‘Old Predynastic’, in about 4500 BC, also took place amid a distinct lack of drastic cultural change. The cut-off point is relatively arbitrary in fact, corresponding to the first known phase at the site of cl-Amra, about 120 kilometres south of el-Badari, in the very heart of the zone stretching from Asyut to Gebelein, the area which has yielded the richest deposits of Predynastic material. This phase also corresponds to the earliest occupation at Naqada, 150 kilometres further to the south, and it is found throughout the bend of the Nile between Gebel el-Arak and Gebelein. Ceramics went through a dual evolution in this phase, firstly in their decoration, which began to include geometric motifs inspired by plant forms and painted or incisedFaiyum Rahariya Oasis Libyan Desert ee Dakbla Oasis a . Oasis Gilf Kebir Bin Terfawi aby t Simbel a bra Bir Sahara Np ‘bel Sahara Gebet Uweinat ‘Wadi Hala ricuRE 2 Principal Neolithic sites in Egypt.26 The Formative Period piate 1 The ‘Dancer’. Painted terracotta statuette from Ma ‘amariya (excavations of H. de Morgan, 1907). Nagada II period, c.3650-3300 BC, h. 0.29 m. (The Brooklyn Museum 07.447.505, Museum Collection Fund.) depictions of animals, and secondly in their shapes, with the appearance of theriomorphic vessels. The art of clay-working had already reached its peak, particularly in the painted terracotta female ‘dancers’ with raised arms. The most beautiful of these is in the Brooklyn Museum,From Prehistory to History 27 New York; the streamlined form of its body is reminiscent of a Cycladic figurine (Plate 1). By the end of the Predynastic period the Nile valley was obliged to open itself up to the outside world, for it had very few natural resources. Metals such as copper were found in Nubia, to the south of the Wadi Allagi and in the region of the Red Sea. Lead, tin, galena and a little gold were found in Sinai and the Eastern Desert and gold was also to be found in the area of the First Cataract. Nubia, however, was always the Egyptians’ principal source of gold. Later, the distant kingdom of Meroe was one of the rare sources of iron, along with the Bahariya Oasis. As for precious stones, turquoise and malachite were to be found in the Sinai, jasper between the Wadi Gasus and the Wadi el-Qash in the Eastern Desert, emeralds on the southern shores of the Red Sea and amethysts in the area around Aswan. Soft stones such as limestone were fairly widespread, particularly on the Libyan plateau. In the Nile valley limestone could be obtained from the northern site of Tura, one of Egypt’s most well-used quarries from the Old Kingdom until modern times, as well as from Beni Hasan in the el-Amarna region of Middle Egypt, and from Abydos and Gebelein in Upper Egypt. Egyptian alabaster (travertine) was quarried at Wadi Gerrawi near Memphis and especially at Hatnub in Middle Egypt, while gypsum was obtained from sites in the Faiyum region. Sandstone was quarried at various locations to the south of Esna, particularly Gebel el-Silsila in Upper Egypt and Qertasi in Lower Nubia. Hard stones, which were very highly valued in prehistoric times, were widely distributed across the country. Basalt was to be found in the north, dolerite in the Faiyum, porphyry, granite and dolerite in the Eastern Desert, and finally quartzite, diorite, steatite and granite in the zone around the First Cataract. The only type of stone prevalent throughout the country was flint, deposits of which tend to follow limestone outcrops in the valley and on the Libyan plateau. Other stones had to be obtained through quarrying, generally on an ad hoc basis. The locations of the mineral deposits — usually in regions distant from cultivated lands and on the borders of the country — meant that the Egyptians were obliged to organize expeditions which relied for success on tight control over the place of extraction and the routes there and back. This necessity became an important factor in the pharaohs’ foreign policy, the primary aim of which was to protect the areas near the Nile valley from foreign encroachment. These growing external influences appeared in the pharaonic icono- graphy in representations of bearded men similar to Libyans, and of products being brought from the south: obsidian and perhaps even28 The Formative Period copper, once thought to have been obtained only from the Sinai. Such contacts with the outside world, which grew more frequent in the period before the union of the two kingdoms, suggest that even at this early stage there were vigorous trading contacts as much with the south (presumably with caravans of traders) as with the west and the east via the oases, the Sinai and the coastal zone. Similar commerce was also taking place between the two Egyptian cultural groups of the north and the south, judging from the discovery at el-Amra of a stone vessel apparently imported from the north. Even more important is the appearance of historical architectural forms, ‘models’ that the deceased took with him into the afterlife: these have revealed the existence of houses and mud-brick enclosure walls of the same type as those of the pre-Thinite period (Hoffman 1979: 147-8). This suggests that the concept of the Egyptian town and urban planning can be traced back as far as the Amratian (Naqada 1) phase (c.4500—4000 BC). THE GERZEAN PERIOD The discovery of the culture of el-Gerza, several kilometres from Maidum, provided the evidence for a third Predynastic phase and a second stage of the Naqgada period: the Gerzean (c.4000—3300 BC). The differences between the Amratian and Gerzean groups are so marked that it is possible to see in them the increasing influence of the northern peoples on those in the south, which was eventually to result in the appearance of a third, mixed, culture: the Naqada III or Late Predynastic period. This culture flourished from about 3500 to 3150 BC, a period of some three hundred years immediately before the unification of Egypt. The major difference between the Amratian and the Gerzean lay in their ceramic production. Certainly the constituents of the pottery were not the same, although this was as much a matter of the specific site involved as a reflection of any technical advance. Gerzean pottery developed particularly in terms of decoration, with the use of stylized motifs including geometrical representations of flora and more natu- ralistic depictions of fauna and other aspects of their culture. There are few surprises among the birds and animals represented: ostriches, ibexes and deer confirm the existence of a Gerzean sub-desert hunting habitat. On the other hand, the decoration of these ceramics is also enlivened with human figures and boats carrying emblems that are clearly divine (Vandier 1952: 332-63; El-Yahky 1985: 187-95) and were perhaps the forerunners of the standards that, a few hundred years later, came to symbolize the different provinces of Egypt. These scenesFrom Prehistory to History 29 seem to have been formally related to early pictograms, but were they historical documents or purely emblematic in function? Unfortunately, the material is primarily votive and mostly from funerary contexts. It is significant, however, that the pottery decoration is complemented by another type of representation dating back to the Badarian period: the carved schist palettes used to grind eye-paint, which were also frequently buried with the deceased; these palettes would soon acquire value as historical documents. Compared with the pharaonic civilization, the Gerzean culture reached a stage of development that was already well advanced, especially in its funerary and religious aspects. Gerzean tombs had become virtual replicas of earthly dwellings; sometimes they comprised several profusely furnished rooms. There were also amulets, figurines and ceremonial objects decorated with thematic scenes of animals lions, bulls, cattle, hippopotami and falcons) which are known to have represented various gods from a very early period in Egyptian history. Naturally, there is always a great deal of uncertainty in reconstructions based on a series of diverse elements. One cannot, for instance, take into account those elements that have not survived for posterity, But it is clear that the main constituents of the civilization of unified Egypt were gradually introduced during the Gerzean period. Archaeological evidence shows that the change from prehistory to history was the result of a slow process of evolution and not, as was long imagined, a brutal revolution involving the simultancous appearance of new technology (essentially metallurgy} and new social structures (organization into agriculturally-based cities and the pro- liferation of mud-brick buildings and writing). These elements of Egyptian civilization have often been traced back to Mesopotamia, partly hecause they are attested there at the same time and partly because it is simpler to envisage a common origin for the ‘Asiatic mode of production’. But the presence in Egypt of Mesopotamian cylinder seals of the Jemdet Nasr period (c.mid-fourth millennium BC) is evidence, as Jean Vercoutter (1987: 101ff.) has pointed out, only of the existence of commercial links like those that were also clearly established with Syria-Palestine, Libya and the African regions to the south of Egypt. Such isolated pieces of evidence can no longer be considered sufficient basis for hypothesizing an invasion at the end of the Predynastic period. The knife found at Gebel cl-Arak (Paris, Louyre) certainly bears Mesopotamian decorative motifs, but it is only one of a well-documented series of figuratively decorated ivories (Vandier 1952: 533-60). It is not sufficiently convincing that the same theme reappears in the ‘Painted Tomb’ at Hierakonpolis, where it is represented in a less typical style (Plate 2; Vandier 1952: 563). ATasix 1 Chronological table of the end of the Neolithic period. Approximate dates Phase Nubia and Sudan Nile Valley Nile Delta Faiyum 5540-4500 BC Neolithic Shaheinab Badari A Merimda Faiyam A Khartoum variant Hemamia Beni Salam Shendi (el-Ghaba) 4500-4000 BC Early Shamarkian Amratian (Nagada I) Omari A (Helwan) Predynastic Shendi (el-Kadada) —_Badari B (cl-Khatara) 4000-3500 BC Middle Group A (First Gerzean A (Nagada II) Omari B Predynastic through Third Cataracts) 3500-3300BC Late Gerzean B (Naqada II) Maadi Predynastic 3300-3150BC Pre-ThiniteFrom Prehistory to History 31 Thinite-period gaming-piece (Paris, Louvre), found at Abu Roash, was sculpted to represent a house consisting of three buildings surmounted by a double-sloped roof (ie. one designed to allow rain-water to drain off). This piece of evidence has often been cited as another instance of Mesopotamian influence, but it is hardly any more convincing than the Gebel el-Arak knife. Apart from the fact that the gaming-piece may simply have been an imported object, as exotic as the cylinder, it is also worth pointing out that rain was by no means unknown in Egypt itself. As far as mud-brick architecture is concerned, the Egyptians had no. need to look abroad for inspiration, since they had begun to use mud- bricks themselves as early as the fifth millennium BC. It might even be argued that clay was a building material as readily available in the Nile valley and the western oases as it was in Mesopotamia. If stone architecture did not appear until later in history, this was not so much because of the lack of metal tools — since quarry-workers had less frequent recourse to metal than might be expected — but because building in stone required a level of organization and degree of re- sources that were more suited to the pharaohs than to the provincial rulers of the late predynastic period. WRITING The question of whether writing was imported into Egypt or evolved there is easily answered by a consideration of the representations on Nagqada-period pottery, which apparently chart the gradual stylization of the plants, animals and religious dances depicted, eventually resulting in a set of divine symbols that are virtually hieroglyphic signs (Vandier 1952: 264—96 [Amratian], 333-63 [Gerzean]). These Naqada pictures reflect a fundamental principle of hieroglyphic writing that was to remain unchanged throughout Egyptian history: the combination of pictograms and phonograms. It is difficult to determine the moment of change from one to the other or even to see whether it took place at all. The only argument in favour of a development from pictogram to phonogram is the brevity of the earliest inscriptions, which seem to have worked through direct pictographic representation, judging from the common use of single unique signs with none of the phonctic additions that regularly characterize later hicroglyphic writing. The phonetic notation was therefore perhaps a technical advance that tended to gather momentum over the course of time, eventually re- sulting in a kind of overloading of the written language and culminating in some form of proto-alphabetic writing. This is certainly the broad impression gained by comparing Old Kingdom texts with those of the first millennium BC.pare 2 Copy of paintings in the predynastic ‘painted tomb’ at Hierakonpolis. (Photograph: John G. Ross.)From Prehistory to History 33 Hieroglyphic writing brought together the pictogram, the ideogram and the phonogram. The pictogram is a direct representation: to draw a man, house or bird is equivalent to naming it. The basic concept is very easy to understand; like prehistoric mural paintings its limits coincide with those of the real world. The representation of concepts, however, is not so simple, even with the use of metonymic methods such as the effect equalling the cause (c.g. the representation of the wind by a boat's billowing sail) or the use of a container to denote the contents (¢.g. the becr jar representing beer and the papyrus roll denoting writing). There is still the problem of homophones, such as sa, written in the form ofa duck seen in profile, which means both ‘duck’ and ‘son’. Consequently, certain signs had to be detached from their ideogrammatic meaning, retaining only their phonetic value, so that the duck hieroglyph could be used to transcribe the biliteral sound sa, meaning either son or bird. The difference between the two was then indicated by a generic deter- minative sign that was added to the phoneme: a man for the son and a bird for the duck. In the case of the latter, the bird determinative would actually be replaced by a single vertical stroke indicating that the sign was being used to signify its original meaning, since the depiction of two ducks in a row would have been confusing. Although every phonogram theoretically retained its original ideo- grammatic meaning, certain signs hecame specialized symbols of the more common phonemes. These were essentially uniliteral signs which comprised a kind of twenty-six-letter alphabet, with the aid of which it was theoretically possible to reproduce all of the sounds. In practice, however, the Egyptian language used a number of other signs to transcribe phonemes of two to six letters, Each of these phonemes could also retain their ideogrammatic values in other contexts. The writing system therefore relied on a collection of ideograms, phonograms and determinatives, using anything from one to several thousand signs, depending on the exuberance of the expression and the period. Hieroglyphs were generally reserved for inscriptions carved on slabs of stone or, more frequently, incised and painted on walls. The basic forms did not change at all from the earliest inscriptions to those in temples of the Roman period. The only variations were palaeographic: degrees of stylization or elaboration, realism, archaizing or innovation, according to the varying aims of the writers. For administrative, accounting and legal documents, as well as the archival notation of other texts (from literary compositions to religious or funerary rituals), a cursive method of writing was adopted at an early stage in Egyptian history. Greek tourists visiting Egypt in the Late Period called this cursive system ‘hieratic’, since from what they oberved they assumed that it was restricted to members of the priest-34 The Formative Period hood; this contrasted with the ‘demotic’ script, which seemed to them to be used by the population at large. In fact, the demotic was only a later version of hieratic which had evolved by the seventh century BC. The basic principle of hieratic was simple: abbreviated hieroglyphic signs representing — individually or in groups — the most frequent groups of signs. From the Old Kingdom to the last centuries of the Egyptian civilization, this shorthand method of writing evolved towards increasing brevity. At the peak of its development, in about the middle of the first millennium BC, it appeared not only as demotic but also as ‘abnormal hicratic’, a form which evolved in the Theban region during the Kushite and Persian periods. As a result of increasing contacts with the Mediterranean and the effects of the Greek and Roman domination of Egypt, the writing evolved finally towards alphabetic notation in the form of Coptic, which was actually the Greek alphabet augmented by seven letters necessary for the reproduction of phonemes that did not exist in the Greek language. Coptic reproduced the stage reached by the Egyptian language around the third century AD. With the abandonment of polytheism, it became the writing of the Church in Egypt, although the official written language was Greek and later Arabic. Coptic was used by Egyptian Christians and today it is the liturgical language of the Copts. It was thanks to Champollion’s knowledge of Coptic that he was able to recreate the phonetics of ancient Egyptian. Since hieratic was the most practical version of the Egyptian writing system, it was used by scribal schools as the medium for learning the written language. [t was in hieratic that the young pupil formed his first letters with the aid of a reed pen on an ‘ostracon’ (i.e. a potsherd or limestone chip). The ostracon was the humblest of writing materials, obtained from a broken vessel or quarry debris, and sometimes replaced by a clay tablet inscribed with a stylus. The more costly papyrus was reserved for more important documents, such as archival material, accounting inventories and religious, magic, scientific or literary texts, which might also be transcribed onto leather rolls or stucco tablets, POLITICAL UNIFICATION Discussions concerning the appearance of characteristic elements of pharaonic civilization lead naturally to the much-debated question of the events leading up to final unification — the two centuries that culminated in the union of two cultural groups. Egyptian sources represent the process as the uiumph of the south over the north, but modern analysis of the earliest dynastic social system clearly shows the influence of the north rather than the conquered south. Kurt Sethe and Hermann Kees first embarked on the study of this process some timeFrom Prehistory to History 35 ago (Vandier 1949: 24ff.), when the reconstruction of the predynastic period was purely speculative. The results are still far from conclusive, although in future it should at least prove possible to clarify the his- torical events that led to the formation and confrontation of the two kingdoms. Kees’s hypothesis was that the kingdom was first unified under the aegis of the north, but that this unification broke down for some reason and was reformed by the kings of the south, who were happy to retain the pre-existing northern system of government. This theory has now been discredited by recent archacological information, which suggests that from the Tasian period onwards, Middle and Upper Egypt from el-Badari to Naqada were increasingly influenced by the culture of the north (Kaiser 1985). The description that the Egyptians themselves have given of this period in their history is not sufficient to reach a definite decision one way or the other. The direct documentation consists mainly of palettes from the Badarian period onwards, artefacts which lie on the interface between myth and history. These objects, apparently all votive, com- prise two basic types. The first consisted of a simple zoomorphic figuration, with the shape of the palette representing the body of an animal such as a tortoise, fish or hippopotamus. The second type was more complex, combining symbolic figurations with historical records involving human figures. The scenes depicted in this way commemorate specific events, the real significance of which is difficult to assess. The find-spots of these documents, mostly between the apex of the Delta and Hierakonpolis (the capital of the southern kings), confirm the possibility that the Gerzean culture was gradually spreading. The themes are similar to those that decorate ivory objects throughout the Gerzean phase until the beginning of the Thinite period. They display the characteristic fauna of the Nile valley as well as that of the sub- desert regions — wading birds, lions, elephants, bulls, deer, serpents and hippopotamuses — either in the form of animal processions or in scenes that involve confrontations, often between herbivores and carnivores (Vandier 1952: 539ff.; 547), but also involving elephants and serpents or bulls between them. THE PALETTES These representations of animals on palettes occur with or without human figures. Among the palettes from Hicrakonpolis are two of the animal type, one in the Louvre and the other in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Both scenes are framed by opposing dogs with, between their bodies, an inextricable tangle of animals of the types listed above (Vandier 1952: 579ff.). The animal group on the Ashmolean36 The Formative Pertod palette includes a finte-playing fox — a theme which later appears frequently in Egyptian stories — and on the recto, two fantastic animals with necks stretched around in such a way as to encircle the central depression in which the cosmetics were ground. These two animals have numerous equivalents in the fabulous bestiary: already present on the Gebel Tarif knife-handle (Cairo, Egyptian Museum), they are also depicted on the Narmer Palette and resemble the opposing wild beasts on the Gebel el-Arak knife-handle. Inevitably, there is some speculation as to whether these votive depictions of animals are anything more than prehistoric survivals com- parable to the cave paintings of their distant forebears at the Spanish site of Altamira. The animals cannot be ascribed to particular species: each detail is superimposed on a different animal form, the overall effect of the composition being to imbue them with a monstrous appearance that is vaguely evocative of great beasts and reptiles. The clements of these compositions are not irrelevant: they are alway impressive animals, wild and primeval, which form the characteristic parts of the objects ~ their grips, sockets and handles. In the real world these compositions became symbols of the power of wild animals, which man had to confront in his efforts to control the cosmos. The warrior depicted on the Gebel el-Arak knife-handle holds back two opposing wild animals with the sheer force of his hands, while the monsters on the Narmer Palette are held captive and bound together with collars to form the central depression for grinding cosmetics. Human intervention in the scenes on the palettes always aims at the ordering of the world, from the Ostrich Palette (Manchester Muscum) to the Hunters’ Palette (London, British Museum and Paris, Louvre). ‘The Hunters’ Palette is quite explicit, depicting an organized expedition to slaughter and capture wild animals: lions are pierced by arro while deer and goats are driven along by dogs and taken captive Men armed with bows and arrows, spears, axes, throwsticks and pear- shaped maceheads are shown organized in a military fashion, under standards representing a falcon on a perch and a version of the hieroglyphic sign that would eventually stand for the cast. There are also depictions of a holy shrine and a bull with two heads recalling the upper section of the Narmer Palette. ‘The Battlefield Palette (British Muscum and Oxford, Ashmolean Museum) depicts a simple conflict bewween humans that is evidently full of symbolism. It shows warriors, probably of Libyan origin — long- haired, bearded and wearing the penis-sheath — being attacked by a lion and vultures, while two personifications of standards (identical to those in the Hunters’ Palette) are leading prisoners with their hands tied behind their backs. In this instance the symbolism is clear: the lionFrom Prehistory to History 37 which, along with the bull, is one of the main images of royal power), assisted by the vulture (the tutelary deity of Hierakonpolis), is ensuring the domination of the southern kingdom of the falcon (not yet identified with Horus, the royal dynastic god) over the northern peoples. Other stages in this conquest are documented elsewhere. The Bull Palette (Louvre) introduces the second image of royal power, the bull, in the process of goring a man of northern ethnic type; below, a long line of prisoners is tied together with a single cord held by the personified standards of five federated kingdoms. The verso bears a depiction of two crenellated town walls with the names of two con- quered peoples written in the form of pictograms. Two other pieces of evidence regarding the final phase of the con- quest also derive from Hicrakonpolis. The first is the Scorpion Macehead (Oxford, Ashmolean Muscum) on which a king is depicted as a standing figure wearing the white crown of the south. Dressed in a kilt and a belted loincloth to which a bull’s tail is attached, he is using a hoe to dig out a canal, while in front of him one man fills a basket with earth and below him others busy themselves around the water next to a pot containing a palm tree. The king, whose name is indicated by a pictogram representing a scorpion, is portrayed in heroic fashion, in characteristic royal postures and beneath a range of standards, among which the future provinces of Egypt can be discerned. From these standards hang lapwings, the rekbyt birds whom later texts identify as the inhabitants of Lower Egypt. The Natmer Palette (Plate 3; Cairo, Egyptian Museum) may depict the final stage of unification. The verso bears the figure of the king, this time identified by two hieroglyphs — the nar (fish) and the mer (chisel); he is dressed in the same apparel as Scorpion but is also wearing the false beard. He holds a pear-shaped macchead in his right hand, to smash the head of a man clearly intended to represent a northerner, judging from the depiction above his head of a falcon (recognizable as the southern Horus) holding a head emerging from a papyrus thicket. The king is followed by a sandal-bearer and under his feet lie two dead foemen. The recto of the Narmer Palette shows a scene of the same type as that on the Scorpion Macehead: above and below the central grinding depression two registers celebrate Narmer’s triumph. In the lower section a bull destroys a city wall and tramples over a conquered enemy; in the upper section is the king, this time wearing the red crown of the north — although the name inscribed in front of him shows that he is the same person as on the verso. Here he is marching forward, still followed by his sandal-bearer but now preceded by the standards of victorious provinces and by another man who may be the first knownPLATE 3. The Narmer palette from Hierakonpolis. Schist, h. 0.64m, recto and verso. (Cairo, Egyptian Museum JE 32169. Photograph: Laurie Platt Winfrey, Inc.)From Prehistory to History a2 In front of him, beneath the sign of a triumphant Horus making eoilgrimage to the sacred city of Buto, the decapitated dead are laid out seth their heads between their legs. Another macehead belonging to the seme Narmer (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum; Vandier 1952; 603, fig. 324) perhaps celebrates this victory, showing the king under a jubilee ‘opy, accompanied by the same courtiers, protected by the same lems and receiving the homage of captives (and also of ‘hundreds of shousands’ of animals, if the accompanying caption is to be believed). More remarkable still is the fact that the animals, represented on earlier palettes as wild beasts, arc now shown enclosed in pens. These documents, reinforced by others such as the Libya Palette British Museum), provide some support for the ‘hydraulic’ theory of the birth of Egyptian civilization, which argues that the control of irrigation played an essential role in the inauguration of an Early Dynastic state already comprising virtually all the elements of pharaonic power, from religion to writing, economic organization and the system of government (Butzer 1976).2 Religion and History THE EMBLEMS The animal symbolism employed in the documents associated with the various stages of the conquest of Egypt is evidence of a direct integration of myth and history. ‘The totemic origins of Egyptian religion can be deduced from the fact that there were emblems repre- senting the various provinces of Egypt (Moret 1923) from the pre- dynastic to the end of the dynastic period. Their symbolic nature is obvious: an oryx on a standard, for instance, represents the region of Beni Hasan; a hare represents the neighbouring province of Ashmunein and a dolphin that of Mendes. It is tempting to see here evidence for the creation of a confederation of geographical or tribal entities, either organized around a divinity whose symbol was reproduced in the local emblem (such as the arrows and shield for the goddess Neith at Sais, the wasr-sceptre for Thebes and the fetish of Osiris for Abydos) or crystallized in some symbolic entity (such as the White Walls, repre- senting the city walls of Memphis, or the Land of the Bow, designating the region of Lower Nubia, which had been included within the boundaries of Egypt by conquest). These divine standards must therefore have represented the earliest stages of Egypt’s political development, since each group of people would have been identified by a totem representing the local deity. The existence of this formative totemic phase presupposes the existence of an Egyptian cosmology which was able to explain the way in which power was shared. In other words, each local religious grouping must have formed around a demiurge chosen from among the divine ‘family’ worshipped in each of the provincial capitals. Fach geographical member of the federation comprised the region surrounding a sacred area characterized by the divine precinct, upon which was super-Religion and History 41 imposed the power of such symbols as the White Walls (Memphis) or the Fetish of Osiris (Abydos). This religious geography thus established the rules of Egyptian political organization since it precisely delimited each region’s place in the hierarchy and identified in each locality a representative of the universal system into which they were all integrated. Each god, as the head of his own family, was able to take on the role played by the universal creator at the head of the Egyptian pantheon. There was therefore a great similarity between the cults and chapels of each of the local gods. “The totemic explanation of Egyptian religion is not completely satis- factory, principally because the Egyptian system does not include all the usual elements of totemism, and because the concept of totemism itself does not conform particularly well with the anthropomorphization of the Egyptian gods, the gradual move towards more abstract cosmologies in the dynastic period or the tricky problem of hypostasis, which lies at the heart of the Egyptian theocratic system (Assmann 1984). There are certain similaritics with totemic concepts (which are essentially African in origin) but not to the extent of being able to speak of structural borrowings from these systems. THE COSMOLOGIES There are three Egyptian cosmologies, but they all represent political variations on a single theme: the sun’s creation of the universe from a liquid clement, the original archetype for which was supplied by the annual flooding of the Nile. The main system of cosmology was developed at Heliopolis, now a suburb of Cairo but once the ancient holy city where the pharaohs came to have their power consecrated. Not only was the Heliopolitan cosmology the earliest, but it also provided inspiration for Egyptian theologians throughout later periods of history. The Heliopolitan cosmology described creation according to a scheme which is generally echoed by the other cosmologies. In the beginning was Nun, the uncontrolled liquid element, often translated as ‘chaos’. Not a negative element in itself, Nun was simply an uncreated mass, without structure but containing within it the potential seeds of life. This chaotic element did not disappear after creation had taken place; it was held back at the edges of the organized world, occasionally threatening to invade at moments when the equilibrium of the universe was disturbed. It was the dwelling place of negative forces, always quick to interfere in the real world. It was also, in a more general sense, the abode of everything that lay outside the known categories of theBO OLE BT universe, from distressed souls who had not been given appropriate funerary rites, to stillborn babies without sufficient strength to enter the world of the living, all floating like drowned bodies. It was from this chaos that the sun emerged. The origin of the sun itself was not known, for it was said to have ‘come into being out of itself’. It appeared on a mound of earth covered in pure sand cmerging from water, taking the form of a standing stone, the benben. This benben stone was the focus of a cult in the temple at Heliopolis, which was considered to be the original site of creation. The mound of earth clearly evokes the tell emerging from the waves at the very height of the Nile’s inundation, and the benben was the petrifaction of the sun’s rays, worshipped in the form of a truncated obelisk placed on a platform. This god who created himself was referred to alternately as Ra (the sun itself}, Atum (the ultimate perfect being) or Khepri (in the form of a scarab, the name of which signified ‘transformation’); this last was represented by the image of the beetle rolling its dung ball along, the roads. ‘The demiurge produced the whole of creation out of his own seed, masturbating to create a pair of deities: Shu (god of dryness) and Tefnut (goddess of humidity). The evocative meaning of Tefnut’s name is ‘spit’, which — if the legend of Isis and Ra is to be believed — was another way of ejecting the divine substance. From the union of the Dry and the Humid was born a second divine couple: the sky goddess Nut and the earth god Geb, a woman and a man. The Sky and the Earth had four children: Isis and Osiris, Seth and Nephthys. This divine ennead, ing of four generations, acted as a link between the process of creation and the appearance of mankind. In fact, the final generation — Isis, Osiris, Seth and Nephthys — introduced the era of mankind by integrating the legend of Osiris into the Heliopolitan system. The myth of Osiris was a model for the suffering that is the fate of all humans. Seth and Nephthys were sterile, but the fertile Osiris and Isis were the prototype for the Egyptian royal family: Osiris, king of Egypt, was treacherously assassinated by his brother Seth, who represented the negative and violent contradiction of the organizational force that was symbolized by the pharaoh. After Osiris’ death, Seth seized the throne. Isis, the model wife and widow, helped by her sister Nephthys, pieced together the dismembered body of her husband. Anubis, the jackal-god, said to have been born of the illegitimate love between Osiris and Nephthys, came to Isis’ aid by embalming the dead king’s body. then gave birth to Horus, a posthumously conceived son of Osiris whose name was the same as that of the solar falcon-god at Edfu. Isis hid Horus in the marshes of the Delta, near the sacred town of Buto, with the help of the goddess Hathor, the wet-nurse in the form of a consReligion and History 43 cow. The child grew up and, after a long struggle against his uncle Seth, persuaded the court of the gods presided over by his grandfather Geb to restore to him the inheritance of his father Osiris, who was by then the ruler of the kingdom of the dead. On to this picture of the realm of the gods were grafted numerous secondary or complementary legends, which were introduced by theo- logians in order to incorporate local deities, to elaborate the various gods’ roles in the cosmology or to achieve the syncretic fusion of several groups. The result of this was a complex tangle of myths which dictate the actions of gods reigning over the world and effectively subject them to the whims of humans. With one exception, there is little discussion in all this of the actual creation of mankind, which seems to have been thought of as having taken place at the same time as the creation of the world. In this exception, the legend of ‘the cye of Ra’, the sun loses his eye; he sends his children Shu and Tefnut to seck out the fugitive, but time passes and they do not return. He then decides to replace the missing eye with a substitute. When the lost eye reappears and finds that it has been replaced it begins to weep with rage, and its tears remut) give birth to people (remet). Ra then transforms the eye into a cobra and places it on his forehead — this is the uraeus, which is given the task of striking down the god’s enemies. The anecdotal nature of this story of the creation of mankind is exceptional and its origins may well lie in the punning of the Egyptian words for ‘tears’ and ‘people’, which seems to have proved too tempting for the theologians to ignore. The cosmological theme of the ‘damaged’ or ‘replaced’ eye went through several stages of development: it provided an explanation for the creation of the moon, the second eye of Ra that was entrusted to Thoth (the ibis-headed god of the scribes), and for the ‘healthy’ eye of Horus. It was Horus who lost his eye in the battle against Seth for control of the kingdom of Egypt; Thoth returned it to him and simultaneously transformed it into an archetypal symbol of physical well-being. This is why the eye of Horus was usually depicted on coffins, since it guaranteed that the dead person would have full use of his body. Ra, the king of the gods, was constantly forced to fight to retain his position of power, since each night, as he journeyed through the after- world, fierce enemies led by Apophis (personification of negative forces) attempted to carry him off. Horus, standing at the head of the harpooners in the divine barque, helped Ra to defeat the machinations of Apophis, thus legitimizing another contamination of the solar and Osirid myths. The attacks made on the king of the gods sometimes took a more unexpected turn: for example, it was Isis, the Great Magician, who attempted to seize power from Ra by causing him to be bitten by a44 The Formative Period serpent. This serpent had been fashioned from clay moistened with the saliva that fell from the mouth of the god (who had become a debilitated old man) as he left each morning to light up the universe, The divine king was overcome by this charm fashioned from his own vital energy, and in order to be saved had to reveal the names of his kas to Isis. By finding out the names of his kas, Isis hoped to acquire Ra’s power. It is clear that the old god would eventually have defeated the sorceress’s plan, but the text breaks off at this point, so the end of the story is unknown. Egypt also has a myth telling of the rebellion of mankind against its creator, who then decides, on the advice of the assembly of gods, to destroy humanity. For this purpose he sends his eye to earth in the form of the goddess Hathor, the bearer of his messages. In one day she devours a large part of humanity and then goes to sleep. Ra, con- sidering this punishment to be sufficient, pours out beer during the night. The beer mixes with the waters of the Nile, thus taking on the appearance of blood, so that when the goddess wakes up she laps up the drink and is struck down with drunkenness. Mankind is saved but Ra is disappointed with it and withdraws into the heavens on the back of the celestial cow, which is supported by the god Shu. He hands over the administration of the earth to Thoth and gives the serpents, signs of royalty, to Geb. This myth accounts for the separation between mankind and the gods, each being given their own place in the universe, which henceforth possesses space and time: dit and bh This legend of appeased wrath recalls the story of the Distant Goddess, a raging lioness which was terrorizing Nubia. A messenger from her father Ra eventually appeased her and escorted her back to Egypt, where she took on the appearance of a female cat guarded by the sun. The Heliopolitan cosmology seems to have gained its popularity by assimilating the principal myths of Egypt, but it was not the only theological system to achieve this. The city of Hermopolis (now el- Ashmunein), about 300 kilometres south of Cairo, was the capital of the fifteenth nome of Upper Egypt. The system of cosmology that was developed at Hermopolis came to rival the Heliopolitan system. It approached the problem of creation in a different way, treating the sun as the last rather than the first link in the chain. The starting point, however, was the same: a liquid and uncreated chaos in which there were four pairs of frogs and serpents who combined their generative powers to create an egg, which they placed on a mound emerging from the water. These couples were cach composed of a single element and its partner: Nun and Nuncet, the primordial ocean that is included in the Heliopolitan system; Heh and Hehet, the water that seeks its way; Keku and Keket, darkness; and finally Amun, the hidden god, and his consortReligion and History 45 Amaunet. Later, when the last element of the ogdoad, Amun, became the dynastic god par excellence, the Theban priesthood succeeded in reconstituting Amun’s ‘family’ on a more human level; as at Heliopolis, this ensured the transition between creation and the human domination of the world. The Heliopolitan and Hermopolitan systems, like such popular myths as the story of Osiris, present elements drawn from the deepest substratum of civilization, some having resonances in the African civilizations: Anubis recalls the incestuous jackal in a Promethean role which existed prior to the Nommos among the Dogon people of Mali, whose cosmology also depends on eight original gods. There are further African links with Egypt: Amun, for instance, resembles the golden heavenly ram whose brow is adorned with horns and a gourd reminiscent of the solar disc; Osiris recalls the Lebe, whose resurrection is announced by the regrowth of the millet; and finally, each individual was thought to be made up of a soul and a vital essence (Griaule 1966: 28-31, 113-20, 166, 194ff.), which the Egyptians called the ba and ka, FROM MYTH TO HISTORY The third major Egyptian system of cosmology was by far the most sophisticated, from a theological point of view. This system is known from a unique document in the British Museum, dating to the reign of the Kushite ruler Shabaka, at the end of the seventh century BC. It consists of a large granite slab from the temple of Ptah at Memphis, which bears an inscription claiming to be the copy of an old ‘worm- eaten’ papyrus; it combines the elements of the Heliopolitan and Hermopolitan systems in an attempt to establish the local god Ptah in the role of demiurge. The Heliopolitan and Osirid elements seem to dominate the text, but at the same time there is a clear movement towards greater abstraction in the description of the process of creation, which consists of the combined use of thought and word. The original version of this text obviously dates to the Old Kingdom, during which Memphis played a primary national role. It can probably be traced back more specifically to the Fifth Dynasty, when the Heliopolitan doctrine was definitively introduced. Another document dating to the Fifth Dynasty is the first known attempt to explicitly describe the link between gods and men: the Palermo Stone. The Palermo Stone belongs to the category of historical annals, which have survived in relatively large numbers in the form of lists of kings’ names, sometimes annotated with commentaries. The most46 The Formative Period famous of these is the work of Manetho, a priest from Sebennytos (now Samanud on the western bank of the Damietta branch of the Nile Delta) who lived during the reigns of the first two Ptolemies (¢.305— 246 BC). Manetho was the first historian to split the chronology of Egypt into thirty dynasties, from the unification of the land by Menes (who had been assimilated with Narmer) to the Macedonian conquest. Unfortunately, his Aegyptiaca has survived only in very fragmentary form in later works (Helck 1956). The lists dating to periods earlier than Manetho are mainly from Ramessid times, the most important being a papyrus written in the reign of Ramesses I], now in the Museo Egizio, Turin, Champollion was the first to work on this document, which bears a dynastic king-list stretching back to the beginning of the New Kingdom. It is clear that a papyrus of this type was the inspiration for ‘tablets’ such as those in the Hall of Ancestors at Karnak (now in the Louvre), the temple of Sethos I at Abydos (still in situ), the neighbouring temple of Ramesses Il (now in the British Museum), the Saqqara tomb of Tunroi, a contemporary of Ramesses II, and other lesser examples (Grimal 1986: S9TEE.), The Palermo Stone is a fragmentary slab of black stone bearing a list of kings extending from Aha, the first sovereign of the First Dynasty, until at least the third king of the Fifth Dynasty, Neferirkare, Unfor- tunately, the text is incomplete and the provenance of the object is unknown, but it is entered in the Palermo Museum as a legacy bequeathed in 1877. Since that date six other fragments have appeared in the antiquities market — these are now at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo and the Petrie Museum, University College, London. The authenticity of these other pieces has been questioned and their con- nection with the Palermo Stone doubted, resulting in a controversy which has raged for almost a century. ‘The fragments in Cairo list a number of kings who, in the initial stages of Egyptian history, alternately bear the crowns of Upper and Lower Egypt. Manetho and the Turin Canon have a basic annalistic structure but they include a cosmological narrative of the origins of Egypt. The integration of myth and history is achieved by the intro- duction of a mythical Golden Age, during which the gods reigned on earth. The royal lists reproduced the narratives of the cosmogonics, particularly that of Memphis, which describes the moment at the begin- ning of time when the divine potter Ptah (whose role here is close to that of the ram-god Khnum) created humanity on his potter’s wheel and fashioned the receptacle of the divine spark of life from clay, a material that had been at the disposal of mankind since the beginning of time Ra then succeeded Ptah on the throne. As the sun who ercates life by dispelling the darkness, Ra is the prototype for kingship, which hReligion and History 47 then passes on to Shu, the god of the air and separator of heaven and earth. In this myth the principal events of creation were recounted. The Greek compilers of Manetho’s text made no mistake im this, identifying Ptah and Ra with the blacksmith-god Hephaistos and the sun-god Helios respectively. According to Diodorus Siculus, Shu and_ his successor Geb (the earth-god) play the roles of Kronos and Zeus, thus mplying that Geb, like Zeus, was the father of humanity. History was therefore presented simply as a continuation of myth, and as far as the Egyptians were concerned there was no other solution to the transition from gods to men: Egyptian society was a daily re-enactment of creation and as such it was a reflection of the order of the cosmos on all its levels. Its system of organization therefore automatically followed that of the universe as a whole — a fact which cannot fail to influence contemporary social analysis. Osiris succeeded Geb and, after the usurpation of Seth, Horus rose to the throne. The Turin Canon then presents a sequence of three gods: Thoth, whose role is described above, Maat and another Horus whose name is missing. Maat occupies a unique place in the Egyptian pantheon: she is not so much a goddess as an abstract entity. She represents the equilibrium which the universe has reached through the process of creation, enabling it to conform to its true nature. As such she is the moderator of all things, from justice to the integration of a dead man’s soul into the universal order at the time of the final judg- ment. She therefore serves as the counterbalance when hearts are weighed on the scales of Thoth. Maat is also the food of the gods, whom she imbues with harmony. The reign of Maat was a Golden Age which each ruler undertook to recreate by confronting the traditional negative forces that each day attempted to obstruct the course of the sun across the sky — the time of Maat was the beginning of cyclical history. Nine further gods, whom Eusebius identifies with the Greek heroes, en came to the throne. Like the heroes, these beings ensured the transition of power from the gods to the founders of human society; they were known as the ‘spirits’ (akhw) of Hicrakonpolis, Buto and Heliopolis, and the last ones were described as the ‘companions of Horus’. Clearly, this succsesion of gods from different localities, con- cluding with devotees of Horus, is a direct reflection of the struggles that led up to the unification of the country, and the Turin Canon identifies several local descendants of these figures. The first ‘king of Upper and Lower Egypt’ (nswv bity) is unequivocally named as Meni, his name actually being written twice, but with one important difference — the first time his name is written with a human determinative and the48 The Formative Period second time with a divine determinative (Gardiner 1959: pl. I; Malek 1982: 95}. Is this Meni — or Menes according to Eratosthenes and Manetho — to be identified with Narmer, as is generally thought, of is it simply a literary method of designating ‘someone’ in general, whose name is lost? One possible contender might then be King Scorpion or perhaps even some earlier ruler whose name has not survived. It is difficult to see why Meni’s name is repeated. Is it perhaps because he passed from being ‘so-and-so’ to being ‘king so-and-so’, changing his name at the same time as he changed his status, with the text regarding him as an incarnation of all of the local holders of power combined into one archetypal ruler of a united country? This would explain the fact that the Palermo Stone mentions only Aha as the first king, whose ‘Horus name’ might perhaps have been Narmer-Menes.3 The Thinite Period THE FIRST KINGS Aha is the first known king of the First Dynasty. Manetho described the first two dynasties as *Thinite’, from the name of the kings’ supposed city of origin: a place called This, near Abydos. The tombs of all of the First Dynasty kings have been found at Abydos, as well as those of some from the Second Dynasty. Most of the Thinite kings, however, had a second tomb in the region of Memphis. The state of these tombs has prevented confirmation of the theory that the early kings were actually buried near the new political capital of Egypt, but in order to respect the dual nature of the land were also provided with a cenotaph in Upper Egypt, from which their power was supposed to derive, at a site which would soon be known as the sacred city of Osiris. These two dynasties formed a single entity, lasting from 3150 to 2700 BC — a period of almost five hundred years during which the Egyptian civilization developed its characteristic traits, The Thinite period is a poorly known phase, essentially because of a lack of surviving texts. The main source of evidence, apart from the Palermo Stone, is the funerary equipment from the tombs at Abydos and Saqqara. As overall founder of the Thinite period, Aha is usually attributed with having achieved rather more perhaps than was actually the case. If he was the same person as Narmer then he was the inaugurator of the cult of the crocodile-god Sobek in the Faiyum region as well as the founder of Memphis. He would probably have established both his administration and the cult of the Apis-bull at Memphis. It is likely that he also organized the newly unified land by instigating a policy of conciliation with the north. Such a policy may be deduced from the fact= Ri ee that the name of his wife, Neithhotep (‘may Neith be appeased’) was formed from the name of the goddess Neith, originally worshipped at Sais in the Delta. The tomb of Neithhotep, excavated at Naqada, was provided with a large amount of equipment including a tablet bearing the name of Aha. It seems that Aha founded a temple of Neith at Sais and celebrated the festivals of Anubis and Sokar (the mummified falcon), as well as his own royal jubilee or sed festival. He appears to have enjoyed a peaceful reign, although this did not prevent him from initiating a long series of wars against the Nubians and Libyans — Egypt’s southern and western neighbours — and establishing trading, relations with Syria-Palestine (judging from the mention of boats on the Palermo Stone). These military and economic initiatives were carried on by his successors. The reign of Aha, which must have ended in about 3100 BC, was thus reasonably well documented on the whole. He had two tombs: one at Saqgara and the other at Abydos. The choice of Aha’s successor probably did not pass without problems. The Turin Canon leaves a blank space between Meni and his successor It(i), who was then followed by a second Iti, which was perhaps simply the Horus name of King Djer. This gap in the record may possibly reflect a court quarrel as to which concubine’s son should inherit the throne. These questions of filiation, which are very difficult to solve given the scantiness of the documentation, are equally relevant for the succession of Djer. Djer’s daughter would have been Queen Merncith (‘beloved of Ncith’), whose tomb has been excavated in the royal necropolis at Abydos. It has been possible to deduce that Merneith was the wife of his successor Wadjit, since texts in her tomb identify her as the mother of Den, the fourth king of the First Dynasty. The teign of Djer was characterized by further developments in foreign policy, including expeditions into Nubia (as far as Wadi Halfa), Libya and the Sinai (judging from the fact that his tomb contained jewellery made of turquoise, which was traditionally imported from Sinai). He also set about the economic and religious organization of the country, establishing a palace at Memphis and building a tomb for himself at Abydos, where he may even have been the historical prototype of Osiris. He was buried along with the rest of his court, although this does not necessarily mean, as was long thought, that his courtiers were obliged to die violently in order to accompany their sovereign into the grave (LAT, 1111, n. 9). This is, however, the first case of the pharaoh’s recognition of the funcrary needs of his subordinates, whose tombs were linked with his in much the same way as they were later to be associated with the great royal necropolises. Judging from the funerary furniture in the private tombs of his contemporaries, the reign of Djer was a time of great prosperity.The Thinite Period 51 CALENDARS AND DATING A single text from Djer’s reign has affected the whole chronology of the First Dynasty by raising the question of the type of calendar being used. This text is an ivory tablet on which there is said to be a representation ¢ the dog-star Sirius in the guise of the goddess Sothis, who was icted in the form of a seated cow bearing between her horns a young plant symbolizing the year (Vandier 1952: 842-3; Drioton and andier 1962: 161). This simple sign would seem to indicate that from ne reign of Djer onwards the Egyptians had established a link between the heliacal rising and the beginning of the year — in other words, they had invented the solar calendar. It seems that at first they used a lunar calendar, many traces of which have survived, But when they realized the discrepancy between this unar method of computation and the passage of real time, they changed to a calendar based on the most easily observed and regular phenomenon available to them: the flooding of the Nile. They therefore divided up the year into three seasons of four thirty-day months, with each season corresponding to the agricultural pattern determined by the rise and fall of the Nile. The first season was the inundation itself Akhet), the second was the period of germination and growth (Pert) and the third was the time of harvest (Shemmnu). It emerged, however, that the first flooding of the Nile, which was chosen as the beginning of each new year, was observable at the latitude of Memphis, which is considered to have been the centre of a united Egypt, at the same moment as the heliacal rising of Sirius. This phenomenon took place according to the Julian calendar on July 19th (or about a month earlier according to the Gregorian calendar}, but not every July 19th. Since the real solar year is actually 365 days and six hours, the discrepancy of a quarter of a day per year gradually lengthened the gap between the two phenomena, This discrepancy could only be corrected after a complete cyele had elapsed over a period of 1460 years, which is now known as a “Sothic period’. The syncronization of the first day of the solar year and the rising of Sirius was recorded at least once in Egyptian history, in AD 139. It is therefore possible, due to the various points in time recorded by the Egyptians themselves, to establish precise dates within these Sothic periods, the terminal points of which can be dated to 1317, 2773 and 4. BC. The ninth year of the reign of Amenaphis I, for example, corresponds to 1537 ot 1517 BC, depending on the precise location at which the phenomena were observed, and the seventh year of Sesostris Ill corresponds to 1877 BC. The date of 4323 BC is thought unlikely to have been the first year of the Egyptian solar calendar, since the archaeological remains suggest that the civilization would not have been52 The Formative Period sufficiently developed at this period. The date 2773, on the other hand, is a good candidate for the beginning of the calendar, although it is later than the reign of Djer. It is arguable, anyway, that the presence of Sothis on the ivory tablet is not necessarily proof of the use of the solar calendar. The fact that the phenomenon of the Sothic rising was recognized does not automatically imply that a new calendar had been adopted. Just as the civil and religious calendars coexisted thoughout Egyptian history, so it seems reasonable to suppose that the lunar calendar was still flourishing in the time of Djer, and that it was not replaced by the solar calendar until the next Sothic period began, at the end of the Second Dynasty. THE END OF THE FIRST DYNASTY Very little is known about Djer’s successor, Djet or Wadjit (or ‘Serpent? if his name is taken as a pure pictogram), except that he led an expedition to the Red Sea, perhaps with the aim of exploiting the mines in the Eastern Desert. Djet’s tomb at Abydos contained numerous stelae, including a magnificent limestone example inscribed with his name (Paris, Louvre). The reign of Den (Udimu), the fourth king of the dynasty, appears to have been a glorious and prosperous one. He limited the power of the high court officials, which had previously been allowed to grow dangerously during Merneith’s regency at the beginning of his reign. He pursued a vigorous foreign policy, rapidly turning his attention to the Near East with an ‘Asiatic’ campaign in the first year of his reign. He even brought back a harem of female prisoners, an act which was to be copied hundreds of years later by Amenophis III. This military activity, along with an expedition into the Sinai to deal with the bedouin, must have influenced his choice of ‘Khasty’ (meaning ‘foreigner’ or ‘man of the desert’) as his stw-bity (King of Upper and Lower Egypt) name, which was changed to Usaphais in Manctho’s Greek version. He was the first Egyptian king to add to his titulature this third name; the nsw- bity title was evidently intended to reflect his active internal policy, including the building of a fortress, celebration of religious ceremonies to the gods Atum and Apis, and a national census (if the Palermo Stone is to be believed). Den also seems to have pursued a policy of conciliation with northern Egypt, which was expressed not only through the name of his wife, Merneith, but also by the creation of a post of ‘chancellor of the King of Lower Egypt’. The tomb of Hemaka, a holder of this office, was discovered at Saqqara. It contained a quantity of rich funerary furniture as well as a wooden tablet bearing the name of Djer which may haveThe Thinite Period 53 been a record of Den’s sed festival (Hornung and Staehelin 1974: The inscription on this tablet includes the earliest depiction of nummy, perhaps that of Djer (Vandier 1952: 845-8). This is urprising in view of the fact that there is no other evidence for the ctice of mummification until some time later. In the tomb built by Den at Abydos a granite pavement was found, the first known example »f stone-built architecture, which until then had been exclusively of mud brick. Den’s reign is estimated to have lasted for about fifty years, which helps to explain the comparative brevity of the reign of his successor, Anedjib (Andiyeb, Enezib), whose name means ‘the man with the bold heart’. Anedjib’s other name, as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, was Merpubia (or Miebis according to Manctho). He probably only came to the throne late in life — so late in fact that he very quickly celebrated his festival, or royal jubilee. This ceremony took its name from the word for a bull's tail, and perhaps also from the name of the canine deity Sed, who was associated with Wepwawet, the ‘opener of the ways’, the jackal to whom Anubis passed on his funerary attributes. The precise origin of the sed festival is obscure, but it was a ritual renewal of power which was intended to demonstrate the king’s vigour, theo- retically after thirty years of his reign. It was basically a re-enactment of the king’s coronation ritual, with the presentation of the two crowns and the symbols of power over the two lands of Egypt in pavilions devoted to each kingdom. There was also a more practical aspect of the ritual, comprising a race and a processional visit to the national gods in their chapel. Finally, the king enacted various rites relating to birth and foundation. This ceremony was an occasion for the issue of com- memorative objects, including — in the Thinite period — stone vases bearing the king’s titulature. There are several surviving vases celebrating the jubilee of Anedjib in his new palace at Memphis with the significant additional name of ‘protection surrounds Horus It was in Anedjib’s reign that the ‘Two Lords’ name (the name placed under the protection of Horus and Seth) was introduced; this title reunited the two divine antagonists of the north and the south in the person of the king. In other words, the king not only symbolized the duality of the nation but also wielded the power of Horus (which maintained the natural equilibrium of Egypt) and the destructive poten- tial of Seth (which could be unleashed on the world outside Egypt). ‘The end of the First Dynasty is a problematic period, since it is clear that the unusually long duration of Den’s reign had led to a struggle for succession to the throne after his death. The reign of Semerkhet ertainly represented a distinct change from the rule of his predecessor. He evidently attempted to emphasize his legitimacy by having Anedjib’sThe Formative Period name erased from his jubilee vases. This very legitimacy was, however, called into question by the omission of Semerkhet’s own name from the Saqqara king-list. His titulature certainly indicates a Previous career, perhaps in a priestly role, before his rise to the throne. His Horus name was ‘companion of the gods’ and his xebty name was ‘the whom the two mistresses guard’ — the two mistresses being Nekhbet, the vulture- goddess of Nekheb (Elkab), and Wadjet, the serpent-goddess of Pe and Dep (Buto), who were the patron-goddesses of the south and north of Egypt respectively, THE SECOND DYNASTY Both Semerkhet and his successor Ka‘a (who was probably also his son) had themselves buried at Abydos. Ka‘a’s reign was the last of the First Dynasty; this change of dynasty is reported by Manetho without explanation. The centre of power seems to have shifted to Memphis, judging from the fact that at least the first three kings of the Second Dynasty had themselves buried in the Saqqara necropolis. Another indication of this geographical shift of power was the name of the first ruler of the Second Dynasty: Hetepsekhemwy, ‘the Two Powers are at peace’. The ‘Two Powers’ were clearly Horus and Seth, and this interpretation is confirmed by Hetepsckhemwy’s nebty name: ‘the Two Mistresses are at peace’, which must be another allusion to the political opposition between north and south. This north-south confrontation Was not necessarily an actual physical struggle — it more likely referred to the country’s tendency to split into these two regions at any time of conflict. The royal family built up strong links with the castern Delta, and particularly the region of Bubastis: they practised the cult of the cat-goddess Bastet (from which the name Bubastis derives) as well as the worship of Soped, a local falcon-god who was soon syncretized with Horus, son of Osiris. It was also during this period that the cult of the sun-god was established, although the name of Ra at this stage only appeared in the Horus name of Hetepsekhemwy’s successor, Reneb (meaning either ‘lord of the sun’ or, more likely and with less hubris, ‘Ra is (my) lord’). Ra completely took over the role of his progenitor, the ‘god of the horizon’, This religious change is confirmed by the name of Reneb’s successor, Nynetjer (Nutjeren), ‘he who belongs to the god’, Reneb and Nynetjer may have been buried in a pair of tombs under the causeway of the pyramid of Wenis at Saqqara, since clay cylinder scalings bearing their names were found there. This attribution, how- ever, in the absence of any other written evidence, is far from certain; such seals are not exclusively found in the tombs of the kings whose names they bear, They have also occasionally been found in the tombsThe Thinite Period 5S of private individuals or even in those of later kings: the tomb of hasekhemwy at Abydos, for instance, contained a cylinder seal bearing the name of Nynetjer but this is not considered to cast any doubt on Khasekhemwy’s ownership of the tomb, Another set of documents, stone vases, are also often found out of their original historical context. The inscriptions on the vases are as crucial as the ivory tablets of the First Dynasty in terms of providing atormation about historical events and about the way in which the iministration of the country was organized. Some very important caches of vases have survived, such as the group dating to the reign t Nynetjer that was found in the subterranean galleries of the Step Pyramid of Djoser, the second king of the Third Dynasty. This dis- covery confirmed the tendency of this type of historical evidence to remain in use, passed on from one generation to another, regardless of se fact that they might have already been used for some other purpose. In the case of Djoser’s tomb, the vases remained in the same kind of context (a royal tomb), whereas the royal jubilee vases of the Second Dynasty often ended up in quite different contexts: they were originally handed out to dignitaries and were then carefully preserved by their families, eventually to appear among the funerary equipment of some distant descendant of the original recipient. Since Weneg and Sened, the successors of Nynetjer, are known only from inscriptions on vases from Djoser’s pyramid complex (apart from references to them in king-lists), it is possible that their power was imited to the Memphite area. Sened was a contemporary of King Peribsen, a statue of whom was most probably placed in Sened’s tomb, especially considering that there was a Fourth Dynasty petsonage describing himself as ‘chief of the w*b-pricsts of Peribsen in the necropolis of Sened, in the temple and the other places’, Peribsen’s local successor Sekhemib, ‘the man with the powerful heart’ (one theory suggests that these two were actually the same man), built him a tomb at Abydos containing stone vases, copper objects and two stelae bearing the name of the king in a serekh (a representation of a palace ground- plan with its distinctive panelled facade depicted in elevation along the ower edge; the king’s name was inscribed in the space delimited by e plan). The whole serekh ensemble constituted the normal method of writing the Horus name of kings; usually the palace facade was surmounted by the Horus falcon, but the Horus name of Peribsen was surmounted by a depiction of the god Seth. These various factors suggest that relations between the northern and southern kingdoms had begun to deteriorate by the end of Nynetjer’s reign, perhaps as a result of the new religious orientation adopted by Reneb, which would have been too favourable towards the north. The56 The Formative Period omission from both king-lists of Peribsen and his Abydene successor, combined with the choice of Seth as tutelary deity, would appear to indicate either that the south had reasserted its independence (Peribsen, for example, appointed a ‘chancellor of the king of Upper Egypt’) or that the southern kingdom no longer recognized the Memphite sovereigns, who were traditionally to be regarded as the legitimate holders of power according to the system that would eventually become the status quo. The power of Peribsen extended at least as far as Elephantine, where seal impressions bearing his name were found in 1985 (and where a temple of Seth is known to have existed in later times). The fact that Sened and Peribsen were eventually the focus of a joint funerary cult in the Fourth Dynasty suggests that this north-south conflict was not a violent one — or at least not during Peribsen’s reign. ‘The situation changed considerably with the appearance of Khasekhem, ‘The Powerful (Horus) is crowned’, who was a native of Hierakonpolis. On the occasion of his coronation Khasekhem made a temple offering of several objects commemorating his victory over northern Egypt, comprising inscriptions on stone vases and two statues (one of schist and one of limestone) showing him seated on a low- backed chair. These statues, virtually the first of their type, already conform to the canon of royal Egyptian representations. In both works the king is enveloped in a sed festival robe and wears the white crown of Upper Egypt. This does not necessarily suggest that he considered Upper Egypt to be the source of his power: bearing in mind the clothes in which he is dressed it seems likely that these two statues formed part of a group, of a kind found elsewhere, showing the king at the time of his coronation rituals in the alternate guises of ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt, according to the different stages of the sed festival. The bases of both statues are decorated with figures of prisoners piled up in a tangle of dislocated bodies. It is thought likely that the victory over the north was the reason why he later changed his name to Khasckhemwy: ‘the Two Powers are crowned’, placing both Horus and Seth over the serekh. At the same time he chose ‘the Two Mistresses are at peace through him’ for his name as King of Upper and Lower Egypt. His establishment of control over Egypt — and apparently the reunification of the country — was accompanied by an energetic building policy that led to technical advances in architecture. Khasekhemwy built in stone at Elkab, Hierakonpolis and Abydos, where his tomb is the largest of the Second Dynasty. For no apparent reason, Manetho ends the Thinite period with the regin of Khasekhemwy. This cut-off point seems particularly surprising given the family links between Khasekhemwy and the Third DynastyThe Thinite Period 57 king Djoser: one of Khasekhemwy’s wives was the princess Nimaatapis, who was eventually to be the mother of Djoser. It is clear, however, that the late Second Dynasty was already more of a ‘Memphite’ than a rhinite’ monarchy. The reign of Khasckhemwy simply brought an end to the political opposition of north and south and established the basic economic, religious and political systems of the dynastic period. His reign was the beginning of a great epoch during which Egyptian civil- ization reached a level of artistic skill and perfection which is now regarded as archetypal. THE THINITE MONARCHY The Thinite monarchy was very similar to that of the Third Dynasty, and most of the major institutions were in place before the reign of Djoser. The principle of transmission of power through direct filial inheritance, on which the pharaonic tradition was based, had already been established, since the king was no longer described only as Horus. He now had three names, forming the basis of his titulature: the Horus name (which expressed his hypostatic role as divine heir to the throne), the name of King of Upper and Lower Egypt (sw-bity) and, from the reign of Semerkhet onwards, a nebty name (which probably reflects the career of the crown prince before his anticipated coronation). The role of the king’s wife in the transmission of power should also be noted: she was ‘the one who unites the Two Lords’, ‘the one who sees Horus and Seth’ and also ‘the mother of the royal children’. The organization of the royal household had already taken on the form that it would continue to assume throughout the pharaonic period, The royal palace, which was probably the mud-brick prototype for the funerary architecture of the time, accommodated both the harem the king’s private apartments) and the administration. The royal ‘house’ was effectively the infrastructure surrounding the king, Although it was the king who theoretically held all the reins of power, in practice he was helped by high officials. It is not always casy to untangle the purely honorific titles from those that indicate a genuine administrative post, but nevertheless it is possible to gain a general idea of the basic elements of the administration. The king was surrounded by more or less specialized advisors, such as the ‘controller of the Two Thrones’, *he who is placed at the head of the king’ or the ‘chief of the secrets of the decrees’. This latter title suggests that there was already an explicit legal system. As the heir of the gods, the king was holder of the theocratic power vested in him. He was, however, only the temporary holder of power: at the time of his coronation the title deeds of the country were handed over to him — in58 The Formative Period principle directly from the hands of the god (Grimal 1986: 441) — on condition that he governed with respect for the laws of the land, which were actually identical to the laws of the universe. In order to fulfil this role, the king issued decrees. In a sense every word uttered by the king constituted a decree with the full force of the law, whether it was fixed in writing or not — as in the Islamic system of daber. It seems that the interpretation of these decrees comprised, along with recourse to written laws and the consultation of jurisprudence, the basis of the Egyptian legal system. ‘As early as the Second Dynasty the circle of officials around the king included a tjaty, but it was not until the Fourth Dynasty that the office of tjaty seems to have acquired the cnormous power that made it comparable to that of the Ottoman vizier. There was also a chancellory and a complete scribal hierarchy — the omnipresent linchpin of the system. The first known chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt was Hemaka, who held office during the reign of Den, and the first chancellor of Upper Egypt seems to have appeared in the reign of Peribsen. The two chancellors were responsible for the census, the organization of irrigation and everything relating to land registration. They dealt with the collection of taxes and the redistribution of the goods which were handed over to ‘treasuries’ and ‘granaries’, par- ticularly grain, herds and food of all kinds. They then co-ordinated the redistribution of these goods among the great bodies of workers employed by the state both in the administration and in the temple: These representatives of central power dealt with local areas split up into provinces, which the Greeks called ‘nomes’ and the Egyptians at first called sepat and then gah from the Amarna period (c.1350 BC) onwards. Although the provinces were not actually identified as such until the time of Djoser, it has already been demonstrated in chapter 2 that the emblems representing each of the nomes date back to the period before the unification of Egypt. These were the territories of the ancient provincial dynasties, which managed to retain their indi- viduality and independence in the traditional ‘topographical lists’, These lists, attested from the reign of Neuserre onwards, divide the country into the twenty-two nomes of Upper Egypt and the twenty nomes of Lower Egypt. There were federal authorities concerned with each of the two kingdoms, such as the ‘Council of Ten of Upper Egypt’ and the ‘Official in charge of Nekhen’, who must have played a role close to that of Viceroy of the South. They dealt with the local officials, the nomarchs (known as the adj-mer: ‘administrators’, who were themselves assistants to an assembly, the djadjat. Nothing is known about national military organization during theThe Thinite Period 59 Thinite period, and conscription is not attested until later, but it is usually assumed that the basic pharaonic military system was already in place. A good idea of military architecture at the time can be obtained from the representations of fortresses and the remains of the Archaic enclosure at Hierakonpolis. Evidence for domestic architecture is restricted to gaming pieces in the form of houses and representations of ‘palace facades’ in tombs. Funerary decoration is the principal source of evidence for Thinite art, while the equipment from both royal tombs and the great private tombs, such as that of Hemaka, suggest that there was a flourishing artistic tradition. Ivory and bone objects were prominent in this adition, as well as ‘Egyptian faience’, ceramics and stone vases. Small- scale statuary has been found in large numbers, incorporating a variety of human types: prisoners, children and numerous female figurines which are not merely ‘concubines of the dead’, but also suggest the appearance of women in everyday life]. Many animal figurines, carved in a number of different materials, have survived. Some popular themes of later times were already firmly established, as in the case of the female monkey cradling her young in her arms (cf. Vandier 1952: 976: Valloggia 1986: 80). Large-scale statuary — still a long way from the gracefulness of the Old Kingdom — was generally rough, and figures ended to be stiffly posed; there were some elegant exceptions however, such as the black granite figure of a man erroncously known as the ‘Lady of Naples’ (Naples, Museo Nazionale), the statue of Nedjemankh Louvre) and an anonymous figure at the Agyptisches Museum, Berlin.Part If The Classical Age4 The Old Kingdom THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRD DYNASTY Ironically, the Third Dynasty is less well known than the two earlier dynasties, and there is still no agreement on its origins, which were dominated by the personality of Djoser. King Djoser, however, was not the first ruler of the Third Dynasty; although the archaeological evidence and the king-lists tend to suggest that he was its founder, there are reasonable grounds for suggesting that the first Third Dynasty king would actually have been Nebka, who is mentioned in Papyrus Westcar. He was also known to Manetho, and a priest of Nebka’s mortuary cult is known to have lived in the reign of Djoser. However, nothing is known of Nebka’s reign since this section is missing from the Palermo Stone. He and Djoser would have reigned for about the same length of time. Their parentage is not documented; it is possible that Djoser may have been either the brother or son of Nebka. The situation is even more complicated in the period after Djoser’s reign: according to the Turin Canon he reigned for nineteen years and was succeeded by a man named Dijoserti or Djoser(i)teti, who ig not mentioned in any other records. As a result of Zakaria Goneim’s discovery of an unfinished pyramid at Saqgara designed along the same lines as Djoser’s, it is now known that his successor was called Sckhemkhet (Lauer 1988: 143ff.), but it is not clear whether Sekhemkhet was the same person as Djoscrti. It is by no means casy to prove this identification, because the Third Dynasty was marked by a change in the royal titles whereby the king’s ‘first name’, which was usually that given to a prince at the time of his birth, became the ‘Golden Horus’ name. In the Thinite period the king’s first name had been the ‘King of Upper and Lower Egypt’ (nsw-bity) name, which he was given at the time of his coronation. The rsw-bity name instead became more closely associated with the Horus name.64 The Classical Age The situation is further complicated by evidence of another Third Dynasty king called Sanakht, who is known from seals found at Elephantine. The German Archaeological Institute has revealed a town and enclosure of the Thinite period at Elephantine, which seems to have acted as the southern border post of Egypt in the First Dynasty. Evidence of Sanakht has also appeared at a tomb in the necropolis of Beit Khallaf, north of Abydos. It was once believed that this was the tomb of Sanakht himself, but it is now thought to be that of one of his officials. Sanakht’s own tomb is therefore still undiscovered, although the most likely location would be at Saqqara, to the west of the funerary complex of Djoser, where seal impressions bearing the name of Sanakht have been found. It is not clear whether he was the first or second king of the Third Dynasty, or indeed whether he was the same person as Nebka, but his reign cannot have lasted any longer than six years according to Manetho. All that can be said of Sanakht is that like the equally obscure Sckhemkhet his name was recorded at the Wadi Maghara turquoise mines, in the western Sinai peninsula. DJOSER AND IMHOTEP Djoser, whose Horus name was Netjerykhet, owes his fame not only to his building works but also to Egyptian historiography itself. One of the major figures in the Egyptian annals, he is famed for having invented stone-built architecture with the help of his architect Imhotep (who was himself deified in the Late Period). Djoser’s reign has tended to be associated with a particular view of the monarchy, which is perhaps best expressed in a well-known apocryphal Ptolemaic inscription on the island of Sehel near Elephantine. This inscription, engraved in the rock- face at Sehel by Ptolemy V Epiphanes over 2000 years after Djoset’s time, describes the action taken by Djoser to deal with a famine during his reign. Djoser complains of the state of the country: My heart was in sore distress, for the Nile had not risen for seven years. The grain was not abundant, the seeds were dried up, everything that one had to cat was in pathetic quantities, cach person was denied his harvest. Nobody could walk any more: the children wete in tears; the young people were struck down; the old people’s hearts were sad and their legs were bent when they sat on the ground, and their hands were hidden away. Even the courtiers were going without, the temples were closed and the sanctuaries were covered in dust. In short, everything in existence was afflicted. The king looks back into the archives, attempting to find the origins of the Nile flood and to understand the role of Kbnum, the ram-god ofThe Old Kingdom 65 Elephantine, in the rising of the waters. He then makes an offering to Khnum, and the god appears to him in a dream, promising; ‘I will cause the Nile to rise up for you. There will be no more years when the inundation fails to cover any area of land. The flowers will sprout up, their stems bending with the weight of the pollen.” Ptolemy V Epiphanes was no doubt actually referring to himself in the guise of Djoser, as he coped with the combined effects of famine and the revolt of the successors of the Meroitic king Ergamenes. But the effect of the text is to identify Djoser as the founder of the Memphite dynasty. Ptolemy V was thus able to associate himself with the origins of the Egyptian national tradition and the much-documented image of kingship, in which the literate and pious ruler did not hesitate to delve back into the theological and historical sources to rediscover the original cosmology and the fundamental patterns of the past. Djoser and Imhotep were both men of this type, but they are known more from legend than from historical fact. It has only proved possible to identify Djoser with Netjerykhet because of ancient tourists’ graffiti at his pyramid, or sources such as the Famine Stele that confirm the importance of Memphis during his reign. Strangely enough, Imhotep the courtier is now better known than Djoser the king, and it was Imhotep, rather than Djoser, who later became the object of a popular cult. Imhotep is thought to have lived until the reign of Huni, in other words almost to the end of the Third Dynasty. His role never seems to have been that of a politician: the only offices he is known to have held are high priest of Heliopolis, lector-priest and chief architect. It was his post as architect that gave him such fame, but the legend that survived him shows that quite apart from his architectural work he quickly developed a reputation as the most striking personality of his time. The literature of the New Kingdom describes him as patron of scribes, not because of his qualities as a writer but because of his role as a personification of wisdom — and therefore also of education, the principal form taken by wisdom. His intellectual, rather than literary, abilities provide evidence of the offices that he probably held under Djoser. In fact it was in recognition of his achievements as a wise counsellor — which were identical to those that Egyptian religion recognized in Ptah, the creator-god of Memphis — that Imhotep was described in the Turin Canon as the son of Ptah, This was the first stage in a process of heroicization that led eventually to him becoming a local god of Memphis, served by his own priesthood and having his own mythology, in which he was considered to be an intermediary on behalf of men beset by the difficulties of daily life, specializing particularly in medical problems. The Greeks, who knew him as Imouthes, recognized66 The Classical Age this specialization by equating him with their own god of medicine, Asklepios. In fact, the cult of Imhotep was to spread from Alexandria to Meroe (via a temple of Imhotep at Philae), and even survived the pharaonic civilization itself by finding a place in Arab tradition, especially at Saqgara, where his tomb was supposed to be located. Djoser, on the other hand, was not deified, and he only achieved immortality through his pyramid — the first example of a new archi- tectural form that was to be adopted by his successors until the end of the Middle Kingdom. THE END OF THE THIRD DYNASTY The end of the Third Dynasty was hardly any clearer than its beginning had been, and it has proved difficult to reconcile the documentary information provided by king-lists with the evidence supplied by archaeologists. In the absence of explicit historical texts, the archaeo- logical data have supplied the basis for a succession of kings based on the development of the architectural form of royal tombs. At the site of Zawiyet cl-Aryan, midway between Giza and Abusir, two pyramidal tombs have been excavated; the southernmost tomb (known as the ‘Layer Pyramid’) closely resembles the pyramid complexes of Djoser and Sekhemkhet at Saqqara. The Layer Pyramid, which was probably unfinished, has been ascribed by means of inscriptions on vases to Horus Khaba, an other- wise unknown ruler. Khaba is perhaps to be linked with King Huni, who is himself cited by the Saqqara king-list and the Turin Canon, where he is credited with a twenty-four-year reign in the first quarter of the twenty-sixth century BC. Huni’s position as last king in the dynasty is confirmed by a literary text composed, if the Ramessid miscellanies are to be believed, by the scribe Kaires. This text is an Instruction, said to be for the edification of Kagemni, a contemporary of King Teti. Kagemni was a vizier and was eventually buried near Teti’s pyramid at Saqqara. Like Imhotep, he had become a legendary figure since the end of the Old Kingdom and his career was thought to have begun in Snofru’s reign. Indeed, the text of the Instruction concludes in this way: “Then the majesty of King Huni died; the majesty of King Sneferu was raised up as the beneficent king in this whole land. Then Kagemni was made mayor of the city and vizier’ (Papyrus Prisse, 2, 7-9; Lichtheim 1973: 50). If Huni was definitely the last Third Dynasty king, the other king who built at Zawiyet el-Aryan — whose Horus name, according to graffiti, was Nebka(re) or Neferka(re) — also has to be accommodated in the list of Third Dynasty rulers. The architecture of this king’s‘The Old Kingdom 67 pyramid dates stylistically to the Third Dynasty, or at least represents a revival of the style of that period. But it is doubtful whether archi- tectural style should be considered sufficient reason for him to be identified either with the Saqqara king-list’s Nebkare (Manetho’s Mesochris) or with one of Huni’s predecessors. It is not yet possible to give a satisfactory account of the Third Dynasty, but archaeological research may yet provide the data for more sense to be made of it. The change to the Fourth Dynasty is equally difficult to understand, but the most concrete surviving evidence of change is the transferral of the royal necropolis southwards, from Zawiyet el-Aryan to Maidum and Dahsbur, before returning north from Cheops’ reign onwards. SNOFRU Snofru’s mother Meresankh, the founder of the Fourth Dynasty, was not of royal blood — doubtless she was one of Huni’s concubines. There is no definite proof of this, but if she was, her son would have married one of her half-sisters, Hetepheres 1, (the mother of Cheops and another daughter of Huni) in order to confirm by blood the legitimacy of his tule. This relationship set the tone for the complex genealogies of the Fourth Dynasty — even the briefest study of the period shows that the royal family was deeply involved in the actual administration of the country. Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legitimize their power. Snofru’s enviable reputation with later rulers, which according to the onomastica was increased by his great popularity with the people, even led to the later restoration of Snofru’s mortuary temple at Dahshur. There is no lack of literary references to his reign, which appears to have been both glorious and long-lasting (perhaps as much as forty years). The Palermo Stone suggests that Snofru was a warlike king. He is said to have led an expedition into Nubia to crush a ‘revolt’ in the Dodekaschoenos region, and to have captured 7000 prisoners in the campaign. This is a huge number considering that the population of the Dodckaschoenos, effectively corresponding to Egyptian-dominated Nubia, was thought to be about 50,000 only in the 1950s. The account of this campaign also mentions the even higher number of 200,000 head of cattle, as well as 13,100 cattle which, according to the same68 The Classical Age TABLE 2 Family tree of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties (generations 1-6). X..om.... HUN [Dynasty Tl) Meresankh | m...X om... X Hetepheres! om... Sonu ceeveeeme. Xs. Nefermaatt Ankhhaf” Kanefer® Henutsen®...m...Citors.. m.. Meritites m. . Libyan? ..m. . Nefertkau Hemiunu Khufukhat | Chseeixes.. om... Metres: Djed- Kawah... m..Hetep- ..m,. DJEDEFRE Bacfre Minkaf® ankh I efhor heres U1 Nebemakhet — Khentkawes Nefethetepes ..m... 7 Sanure NeFERIRKARE Useriae (Dynasty V) (Dynasty V) (Dynasty V) Chephren’s firs: viziet * Snoftu’s second vizier. then Cheops’ first vizier. Cheops’ third wits “Snoftu’s fest vizier, Cheops second vizier *Chephrer’s second vizier “Priest of Heliopolis in Papyrus Westcar. source, were obtained in a campaign against the Libyans; 11,000 of them are said to have been taken prisoner. ‘These military campaigns were not merely isolated raids against rebellious peoples: from the beginning of the Archaic period Nubia had provided Egypt with a source of manpower both for major building works and for the maintenance of order, The desert peoples — the Medjay and later the Blemmyes — provided the core of the troops that policed Egypt itself. The domination of Nubia was also useful in terms of guarding the trade routes for such African trade goods as ebony, ivory, incense, exotic animals (including giraffes and monkeys, which were particularly popular throughout the Old Kingdom), ostrich eggs and panther skins, The domination of Nubia also enabled Egypt to control the sources of certain raw materials, such as the gold mines located throughout the desert in Nubia from Wadi Allaqi to the Nile and the diorite quarries to the west of Abu Simbel It was this desire for raw materials that led to the campaigns into the Sinai which were launched by virtually all Old Kingdom rulers from Sanakht onwards, Their aim was not to contend with possible invadersThe Old Kingdom 69 from Syria-Palestine but to exploit the copper, turquoise and malachite mines in the western part of the Sinai peninsula at Wadi Nasb and Wadi Maghara. Snofru was no exception: he led an expedition against the bedouin, recapturing those areas of the Sinai that the Egyptians were only able to exploit temporarily. He must certainly have done much to establish Egyptian mines in the region, judging from the popularity of his cult among Middle Kingdom miners in the Sinai, Ac the same time, the continual state of war with the nomadic peoples appears to have presented no hindrance to Egypt’s commercial links with Lebanon and Syria via the Phoenician seaboard. Snofru even sent a fleet of about forty vessels to bring back quantities of timber, which was always in short supply in Egypt. Not only is Snofru credited with the construction of ships, fortresses, palaces and temples but he is the only ruler to whom three pyramids are ascribed. Initially he built a tomb at Maidum, some distance to the south of his predecessors’ pyramids at Saqgara. This first tomb, modelled closely on Djoser’s Step Pyramid, was barely finished when he abandoned it, in the thirteenth year of his reign, to undertake two new buildings at Dahshur, both of which were intended to be perfect pyramids. It is difficult to understand why the royal necropolis was moved south to Maidum and then back north again. The choice of Maidum must have been a deliberate attempt to break with the previous dynasty, and therefore clearly belonged to the first half of Snofru’s reign. The royal family seems to have developed links with the Maidum area, since members of the elder branch of the family were buried there, notably Nefermaat, who was Snofru’s vizier and the architect of King Huni’s tomb. Nefermaat’s son, Hemiunu, became Cheops’ vizier, and following the tradition set by Nefermaat was also the builder of Cheops’ Great Pyramid at Giza. Hemiunu was rewarded by being allowed to site his own tomb nearby at Giza, placing inside it a statue of himself. Another illustrious tomb-owner at Maidum was Rahotep, whose statue, showing him alongside his wife Nofret, is one of the masterpieces of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo (Plate 6). CHEOPS The Fourth Dynasty necropolis par excellence was undoubtedly the Giza plateau, dominated by the pyramids of Cheops and his successors. The Giza pyramids were surrounded by streets of mastaba tombs belonging to the officers and dignitaries who continued to attend their masters’ courts in the hereafter. A curious fate awaited Cheops, whose name in Egyptian was Khufu, an abbreviated version of Kbnum-khuefui (‘Khnum is protecting me’). His pyramid transformed him into the very